EIR NEWS SERVICE

                        Editorial Opinion:

                JEREMY RIFKIN RUSHES TO SOVIET AID
                      ON EM WEAPONS RESEARCH
                ----------------------------------

                    by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

                         -----PRECIS-----
     A Gordon Wilson item in the 12 April WASHINGTON POST reports
efforts to shut down U.S. EM-weapons research by Jeremy Rifkin's
"The Foundation on Environmental Trends." The Soviets,  who have
avowed that whichever power first controls EM weapons rules the
planet,  are proceeding full-steam with their own efforts in this
direction. Yet,  Rifkin et al. persist, despite such warnings;
are they acting wittingly in Soviet interests?
                          --------------

LEESBURG,  April 12 (EIRNS)--As announced in a Washington Post
item of April 12,  circles associated with anti-science huckster
Jeremy Rifkin are at it again,  this time moving to strip the
U.S.A. of all defense against the new super-weapons being
developed at a breakneck pace in Moscow.
     The weapons in question are called "radio-frequency" or,
better named,  "electromagnetic" systems. Although the
technologies involved do have major weapons applications,  they
are also vital parts of present effects to discover new cures for
many pestilences and illnesses,  including such killers as cancer
and AIDS. It is possible that no cure for AIDS could ever be
discovered,  except with crucial help from a branch of
electromagnetic-radiation research called "non-linear
spectroscopy."
     Next,  we might hear from Rifkin,  that EM research ought to
be closed down because it represents a threat to the HIV virus.
Absurd? Where does one draw the line between snail-darters and
insects,  on the one side,  and bacteria and viruses on the other?
Some insects,  such as mosquitoes,  have an entirely negative
impact. At the same time,  there is no more efficiently
mass-killer of human beings than a lack of scientific and
technological progress. Millions of people have already died
directly because of the "environmental impact" of the kinds of
measures successfully imposed by malthusian fanatics including
Rifkin.
     Perhaps it is time that Rifkin's Foundation for Economic
Trends be obliged to file as an agent of the Soviet government.
That filing might be debated;  there should be no debating the
fact,  that Rifkin's foundation ought to inform us how it intends
to compensate the millions of HIV-infected persons who will almost
surely die if Rifkin's motion prevails.  In a strict
interpretation of "environmental impact,"  the Foundation's chief
activity ought to be to shut itself down.
     Every informed person ought to be in favor of improving the
environment for human beings. In fact,  Rifkin typifies those who
misuse the term "environment" to mean the direct opposite to what
our national policy ought to be. A fresh interpretation,  and
probably amendment of the NEPA is overdue.

                    Rifkin & The "Anti-Christ"

     Jeremy Rifkin hardly ranks as a candidate for the post of
"Anti-Christ,"  but whoever that latter evil personage might prove
to be,  Rifkin is certainly among his disciples.  This is no
exaggeration;  it is quite literally the case.
     The "Anti-Christ" is the Syrian cult of the Magis,  which
recruited the Roman Octavian (later, Augustus Caesar) at a meeting
held on the Isle of Capri,  and backed Octavian against Antony and
Cleopatra,  establishing Rome as the capital of the fusion of
Rome's,  Egypt's,  and Syria's domains into the empire of the
Roman legions. For a time,  Octavian and his heirs were quite
literally the embodiment of the Anti-Christ.
     It was the Magi-steered Emperor Tiberius,  from his cult-
center on Capri,  who ordered the execution of Jesus Christ, and
whose nephew-in-law,  Pontius Pilate,  carried out the order,  to
go down in history as the prototype of the modern government
bureaucrat who protests "Nothing personal,  just carrying out
orders." The cult of the Anti-Christ was established as a
religious movement by a member of the Magi,  the notorious Simon
Magus. The dogma of this cult,  called Gnosticism,  is traced by
most modern Gnostics to a second-century B.C. follower of Simon
Magus,  the notorious Basilides.
     Jeremy Rifkin is a Gnostic.  So was the Swiss psychoanalyst
C. G. Jung. So were the theosophist cronies of the evil Bertrand
Russell among the followers of Lucifer-worshipper Aleister Crowley.
     The general line common among these Gnostics is that Jesus
Christ did not die on the Cross,  but that a substitute was used,
while Christ is alleged to have married Mary Magdalene and gone
off to sire generations of blood-line illuminati.
     Adolf Hitler,  like the Richard Wagner of Parisfal,  adhered
to such a cult,  and spent a fortune searching for the mythical
Holy Grail in southeastern France. The mythical Grail is a leading
symbol of the cult. Hitler also sent fat, cocaine-sniffing Hermann
Goering to Capri,  to attempt to buy the emperor Tiberius
palace-site,  claiming that Hitler was the reincarnation of the
Tiberius who ordered the slaying of Christ.
     Whether Rifkin himself adheres to such obnoxious stuff, is
almost irrelevant;  he acts as if he did.
     During the relevant period,  these Gnostics produced a
counterfeit Bible,  known as the Gnostic Bible. This text was
recently translated at Harvard Divinity School,  and is now being
taught to the illuminati among the faculty and student body at
Yale. Shall we may anticipate a novel crop of ministers,  rabbis,
and priests from those precincts?
     Since the days of Aaron Burr's Jonathan Edwards' "Great
Awakening,"  up and down the Connecticut River Valley,  we raised
in New England are accustomed to curiously obnoxious religious
innovations from the relevant liberal precincts thereabouts.
     Among the peculiar features of this Anti-Christ worshipper's
version of the Bible is a destruction of the famous 28th Verse of
the First Chapter of Genesis:

     "And God blessed them,  and God said unto them,  Be
     fruitful,  and multiply,  and replenish the earth,  and
     subdue it:  and have dominion over the fish of the sea,
     the fowl of the air,  and over every living thing that
     moveth upon the earth." King James' Version.

The destruction of that fundamental tenet of Judeo-Christian
belief is the Gnostic's cause which Rifkin has made his life's
work. This is the Gnostic's devotion of that heathen cult named
The Foundation on Economic Trends.
     This is no mere coincidence. The modern "environmentalist"
cults which yield such diabolical fanatics as Rifkin were
conceived and set into motion by avowed Gnostics includ ing the
followers and associates of theosophist Lucifer-worshipper
Aleister Crowley. As Stanford Research Institute's Marilyn
Ferguson documents in her advocacy of this connection, in her ,  it was the Gnostic mystical Brotherhood of
such as Oxford University's John Ruskin,  Crowley,  and the Fabian
circles of the pro-genocidalist Bertrand Russell and of H. G.
Wells,  who implanted modern "neo-malthusianism" in North America
and Western Europe.
     On religious grounds,  therefore,  every Christian and Jew
will shy from an abomination such as Rifkin and his crowd, pretty
much as Adolf Hitler was to be shunned.  However,  since our law
prohibits any established church,  how  do such considerations
bear upon the shaping of the public policy of the United States?
The principles of natural law written into the intent of the
Declaration of Independence and federal Constitution,  show the
proper connection. What Rifkin proposes is directly contrary to
the original clear intent of U.S. constitutional law.
     U.S. constitutional law is defined chiefly by two documents,
the Declaration of Independence and Federal Constitution. The
latter changed nothing of the former,  except to establish a
Federal Union and the form of government suited to that purpose.
It is the Declaration of Independence which premises the
independent existence of the United States on an appeal to the
authority of a body of natural law.  a body of law higher in
authority than any man-made law of government or international
treaty.
     Since the beginning of the present century,  more
emphatically,  and since the appointment of Fabian fellow-traveler
Oliver Wendell Holmes as Chief Justice of the Federal Court, there
has been an insistent defiance of the plain language of the
Declaration of Independence,  Constitution,  and Bill of Rights,
to the degree that the conduct of legal process today bears faint
resemblance to any rational principle upheld by the republic's
founders. The drift in law is the Romantic irrationalism of
Berlin's Karl Savigny,  the dogma which Savigny's student,  Karl
Marx copied in formulating what he called "historical materialism."
     The question which the modern practice of law-making poses to
its critics,  is a sneering:  "Natural law does not exist. It is
we who make the law and the judicial decisions.  Can you critics
show me an agency with the power to defy our right to say the law
is whatever we choose to say it is."
     The answer to that sneering challenge is,  "Yes.  We can
point to a marvellously efficient agency which destroys any nation
which persists in violating natural law,  as the two roman empires
were each destroyed in succession,  by no other agency than this
one." The liberals may insist,  that the choice of belief in God
is a purely arbitrary matter of personal taste;  it were better to
choose the God whose natural law has the inherent power to destroy
entire nations which persist in violating that law.
     It was never intended by the founders of our republic that
the separation of state from church should be construed as
indifference to Christian natural law,  as the precedent of St.
Augustine's  defines this,  and as Nicolaus of Cusa
elaborated this for modern society later. Although some of those
founders,  like Thomas Jefferson,  were influenced by the
eighteenth-century materialist "enlightenment,"  the central
current of American eighteenth-century republicanism was defined
with direct efficiency by Boston's Cotton Mather,  as most of the
crucial features of our independence were already prefigured by
the pre-Andros Massachusetts Bay Colony.
     Our republic's attitude toward religion's influence on public
policy was not atheistic (agnosticism was invented by Charles
Darwin's Thomas Huxley during the mid-ninteenth century).  It was
Christian ecumenicism extending its fraternity to Judaism in such
fashion as the history of Jewry in eighteenth century America
attests.
     The point of distinction,  is that it is not allowed that the
shaping of our public policy be governed by the specific dogmas of
any religious denomination,  but only upon principles of natural
law traditional to Judeo-Christian belief. The policy-shaper must
not argue from Scripture or catechism. The policy-shaper must rely
upon an appeal to reason,  by aid of an intelligible
representation of the facts and calculable consequences of either
a policy or the omission of a proposed policy.
     In other words,  if the instruction of the 28th Verse of
Genesis I is valid,  we can not merely assert this on the
authority of a reading of the Scripture. If our reading of that
Scripture is true,  then,  particularly given the long history of
mankind's existence,  our reading must be demonstrably true in
those latter terms of reference.
     The factual basis for this proof of our point against Rifkin
is overwhelming,  to the point that there exists no fact or
omission will permits reasonable doubt.  A society which follows
Rifkin's secularized Gnostic dogmas will be destroyed as a
consequence of doing so,  as the two Romes brought about their own
destruction before us.  A society which accepts Rifkin's Gnostic
dogma will be shown in the course of history to have been
destroyed because it was not morally fit to exist.
     Hypothetically,  you might escape the fuller measure of
penalty for your sins on that account;  your grandchildren would
bear the full penalty.  Unfortunately,  after twenty-five years of
full-blown unleashing of the counterculture,  and twenty years of
"environmentalism,"  the time of our grandchildren's suffering is
about now.  If we wish our nation to continue to exist,  there is
little time to rid ourselves of the influence of the Rifkins and
their ilk upon the shaping of our national policy.

                        Progress & Survival

     What were then named the "new sciences" of ethnology,
sociology,  and modern psychology were invented by the nineteenth
century positivists,  with the French Disease of Ethnology
reaching our shores,  as the future anthropology, during the
1840s. Since the beginnings of American anthropology under the
patronage of the treasonous Albert Gallatin, anthropologists,
generally speaking,  have been terrible hoaxsters and liars, from
Lewis Henry Morgan through Dame Margaret Mead.
     Exemplary is the insistence of these creatures that we must
rue the fall of Aztec culture,  one whose heart-rending religious
practices might have been the envy of an Adolf Hitler.
     There is no doubt,  after scrutiny of Jeremy Rifkin's
recently published writings,  that he has swallowed the dogmas of
these anthropologists,  and depends upon them to a considerable
degree for his current batch of anti-science sophistries.  Since
we are implicitly obliged to refute Rifkin's argument in part on
its own terms,  we begin our proof with a reference to one of the
favorite dogmas of the anthropologists:  the assertion that the
original form of human society was a "simple hunting-and-gathering
society" fit to delight the deranged sexual fantasies of a
Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
     It is elementary to show,  that given this planet in a
wilderness state,  an average of approximately ten square
kilometers of land-area were required to sustain the life of an
average member of such an hypothetical form of "primitive
society."  This would set an upper limit to human existence on
this planet, at approximately ten millions individuals.
     The state of culture possible for such a society would
satisfy the most radical of the utopian fantasies found among
modern "environmentalists." The average life-expectancy among
surviving infants,  would be significantly less than twenty years.
The mental and moral life of the members of such a society would
compare precariously to that of troops of chimpanzees and baboons.
     According to last Summer's reports,  the population of this
planet now exceeds five billions persons. Granted,  most of those
subsist in reduced circumstances,  often precarious ones. If we
but assume that the levels of technology well-established by the
earliest 1970s were made generally available to all nations,  that
would suffice to sustain perhaps fifteen billions persons at an
average standard of living comparable to that of western Europe or
the United States about 1970.
     On the frontiers of present developments in science,  we are
elaborating new technologies which will increase the per-capita
productivity and income of the average U.S. person by about
ten-fold during two generations.  We have in sight, beyond that,
more advanced technologies which are adequate to increase the
per-capita productivity a hundred-fold above present levels by the
close of the next century.  By that latter time,  the human
population of Mars,  for example,  will have reached a level of at
least the tens of millions,  while the great deserts of this
planet have been transformed into habitable,  fertile gardens.
     Thus,  if we assumed that the anthropologist's "primitive
hunting-and-gathering society" ever existed as a naturally
occurring form of original society,  we would say that by 1987
mankind had increased human potential population-density a
thousand-fold--three orders of magnitude in decimal terms,  and is
in reach of raising that to a hundred-thousand-fold--five orders
of magnitude.
     This points to a most fundamental distinction setting mankind
absolutely above,  and distinct from the beasts.  The obvious
evidence of this distinction,  is that mankind has increased its
raw potential population-density by three orders of magnitude
above the hypothetical "hunting and gathering" level,  whereas no
beast could increase its by even a small fraction of a single
order of magnitude.
     Looking at all that is known factually of past human
existence,  including archeological evidence,  the increase of
mankind's raw potential population-density is due chiefly to what
we may term retrospectively "scientific and technological
progress" --precisely what Rifkin works to terminate.
     This increase has the following four leading features:

(1) The increase of the physical value of an average market-
     basket of consumption,  and an accompanying increase in
     life-expectancy of surviving infants.

(2) A shift,  in percentiles of total labor-force,  from rural
     to urban labor,  and a shift in percentiles of the urban
     labor-force,  from production of households' goods to
     production of capital goods.

(3) A shift both in the amount of usable energy consumed
     per-capita and per-square-kilometer,  and in the tem-
     perature-equivalent of energy applied to the point of work.

(4) Those kinds of advances in the internal organization of
     powered tools,  machines,  and analogous processes,  which
     enable mankind to employ increased amounts of energy
     per-capita and per-hectare efficiently,  and to increase
     the net work accomplish with an average unit of energy
     consumed so.

     This latter change in the organization of the powered
productive process is the raw definition of technological
process.  The preceding,  cited constraints,  are the
preconditions for continuance of employment of more advanced
technologies.
     This increase in the raw potential population-density of
mankind--by,  apparently,  more than a thousand-fold thus far,  is
attributable entirely to the uniqueness of the human individual's
mental-creative processes. Through the development of those
mental-creative potentials of the individual,  not only do we
develop persons capable of generating valid fundamental
discoveries in physical science;  we also develop,  more
generally,  persons able to assimilate these discoveries
efficiently.  Thus,  mankind is able to change its behavior in a
way no beast can do;  thus,  all efforts to explain human
psychology and human behavior from the vantage-point of studies of
animal behavior,  are intrinsically absurd.
     Throughout this process,  man is bound by relative limits to
natural resources. For the most part,  mankind's technological
progress increases the fertility of land,  and so forth.
However,  some resources become either scarcer,  or relatively
more costly to develop.  We overcome such relative limits through
technological progress;  we develop so new kinds of resources,
and are enabled to use economically the old kinds of resources.
     If we ever ceased to effect technological progress,  the
human cost,  in labor,  of sustaining per-capita existence would
increase. So, the standard of living,  and culture would decline,
and,  at the same time,  the raw potential population-density of
mankind would decline.  This is precisely what caused the
erosion,  leading to the fall of both the empires of Rome and
Byzantium.
     Indeed,  most among what anthropologists identify as original
or relatively primitive cultures of this planet are shown by the
acheological and anthropological data themselves to be,  like the
famous "digger indians" of California,  but the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries' polynesians,  too, degenerate offshoots of a
failed higher level of culture.  So, the post-1,000 B.C. Mayans
could not have developed the urban cultures of the Maya cities;
rather,  after approximately 1,000 B.C.,  there appears to have
been a rather catastrophic collapse of previously established
levels of civilization,  with the once-leading "tla"-speakers
degenerating into the savage ancestors of the Aztecs met by Cortez.
     Generally,  long before the earliest archeological evidence
of lunar calendars,  solar astronomical calendars existed with
what are,  for line-of-eyesight observation,  very sophisticated
astronomical cyclical features. The progress of mankind's increase
in raw potential population-density has not been a gradual or
consistent one;  what we have achieved so far is the net result of
alternating successes and failures.
     What must necessarily bring about the collapse of any
culture,  less predominantly external causes,  is a shift in
cultural paradigm which causes the culture to abandon the practice
of generalized technological progress. That is precisely what has
been happening,  most conspicously,  to the United States during,
most emphatically,  the recent twenty years since the fiscal
budget of 1966-1967. However much our cultural vigor was eroded up
to the 1960s,  our cultural paradigm was approximately the most
successful on this planet. Beginning the interval between 1963 and
1968,  we began to shift our prevailing cultural paradigm,  under
the growing influence of neo-malthusian dogmas,  to a form of
culture which is inherently unfit to survive.
     Thus far,  our argument would seem to be,  that scientific
and technological progress are indispensable means for increasing
the standard of living and life-expectancies,  and enabling
societies to survive. It might be argued,  that such a view
degrades the individual to the role of necessary labor, a labor
which must necessarily increase its productives if it is to
succeed in that mission.
     There is also an opposite view of this matter.  The ability
of the individual to generate valid fundamental discoveries in
physical science demands extension of the period of education of
the young through the secondary levels and into higher learning.
The same kinds of changes are indispensable if labor is to be able
to assimilate advanced technologies efficiently.  If education is
directed to the principal purpose of fostering the development of
the mental-creative powers as such, the result is a higher quality
of individual personality,  higher because of increased distance
from the hedonistic irrationality of the beasts.  From this
standpoint,  it would appear that the purpose of increasing the
raw potential population-density through technological progress,
is to enable the average person to become less bestial, more human.
     From the standpoint of some leading Christian theologians,
such as Cardinal Nicolaus of Cusa,  the comprehension of the
Creator's laws less imperfectly satisfies our yearning to lessen
the imperfection in the attempted congruence of our will to that
of the Creator. We become thus less imperfectly in the image of
the living God.
     Eliminate the dichotomy between the two views of the matter;
unify both as a single,  functionally interdependent conception.
Labor informed by technological progress,  and labor committed to
the good,  is not merely an appendage of the productive process,
but rather the productive process is also an appendage of the
development of the individual person as less imperfectly human.
     It is our humanity of which Jeremy Rifkin would deprive, and
that together with the cruelest circumstances imposed upon our
grandchildren and great-grandchildren.
     Thus,  such Scriptural injunctions as the famous 28th Verse
of Genesis I are written not only in the Bible,  but also in the
galaxies and in the history of mankind to date.
     Rifkin's dogmas are neither new in history,  nor do they date
only from the wicked Magi. Scripture speaks of the Whore of
Babylon,  the mother of he (e.g.,  the Magi) who wears the mark of
the beast. This Whore is the Chaldean lunar earth-mother goddess
Ishtar,  the semitic name for the Sahkti of the Dravidian
colonists of Sumer. She is also known as Athtar,  Astarte,
Cybele,  and Isis. Her Dravidian consort,  the phallus-god Siva,
is also known as Baal,  Osiris,  Satan, and Dionysos,  and in such
variants as Apollo and Lucifer.
     In every well-known case of the collapse of civilizations,
wholly or substantially,  in the region of Near and South Asia,
and the Mediterranean littoral,  a cultural paradigm of the sort
specific to such offshoots of the Shakti cult was the human causal
factor. Gnosticism is but the paradigmatic guise in which these
"Babylonian" cults persisted during the Christian Era. Rifkin's
secular Gnosticism typifies the essence of these.
     We have a choice:  persist in tolerating the kind of
anti-science "environmentalism" represented by Rifkin,  or survive
as a nation. The United States has become an endangered species,
and Rifkin is among the pollutants responsible for the threatened
catastrophe.

                    The Soviets & Malthusianism

     The continued influence of Henry A. Kissinger and Zbigniew
Brzezinski merely typify,  as better known cases,  the fact that
U.S. policy-making is incapable of serious strategic thinking. I
do not wish to pick on Kissinger of Brzezinski gratuitously, nor
do I wish to imply that they are even the most important figures
in relevant aspects of policy-shaping.  I am merely encumbered by
the fact that they are the best-known of the names at hand.
     To wit:  the combined exertions of offense and defense
required to secure victory in a strategic conflict,  represent a
combined allotment of efforts,  not less than eighty percent of
which total is properly devoted to cultural efforts in culture,
physical economy,  and politics,  and not more than twenty percent
to military efforts as such.
     If we accept the Soviets' cultural standpoint,  theirs is the
correct form of strategic planning,  and ours is not. If one
wishes to conquer a nation,  prudence,  even Soviet shrewdness
dictates that it were more effective if we first weaken a nation
to the point it might be either conquered more assuredly or
induced to submit with no more than a whimper.  The most effective
way to accomplish this,  from a Soviet vantage-point, is to weaken
the western economies while also weakening the western political
will to resist.
     The interconnections of "environmentalism,"  "post-
industrial" utopianism,  and the rock-drug-sex young
counterculture,  centered upon the drug-culture,  have shown their
efficiency in serving the Soviet cause. The question is,  to what
degree is this process of erosion of our culture our own doing,
and how much has it been caused by direct steering from the Soviet
government?
     To a large degree,  the ideas of neo-malthusianism and the
counterculture,  as they are encountered today,  are much older
than the Soviet state,  and significantly older that the origins
of Bolshevism itself. Predominantly,  they originated within the
West,  from the stratum which we have identified by the label "The
Aquarians:"  Ruskin,  Nietzsche,  Crowley,  et al. However,  by no
later than 1962,  the Soviet government resolved to exploit these
self-destructive influences inside the West;  by 1967-1968,  under
KGB chief Yuri Andropov, the Soviet orchestration of international
narco-terrorism was in full swing.
     In a "secret address" of 1962,  at the hottest point of the
Sino-Soviet conflict,  Soviet General Secretary Nikita Khrushchev
praised Mao Tse Tung as making a fundamental contribution to the
conflict with the U.S.A.,  in using China's drug-weapon against
the U.S.,  during the period of the Korean War,  and again,
during the early 1960s. Khrushchev vowed then that the Soviets
would not be left behind in this matter. Andropov's role in
launching coordinated international narco-terrorism,  largely
through Syria,  beginning 1967, reflects the continuation of
Khrushchev's drug-war policy under Brezhnev.
     About the same time that Andropov was coordinating the
integrated narco-terrorist operations,  a complementary channel of
opportunity was opened to Moscow through the founders of the
malthusian Club of Rome, Britain's Dr. Alexander King and Solly
Zuckermann. One outgrowth of this was the establishment of the
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) at
Laxenberg,  Austria,  with support from the U.S. Ford Foundation's
McGeorge Bundy,  in cooperation with the Soviet KGB. In Moscow
itself,  the relevant institution was the Institute for Global
Systems Analysis,  with connections not only to IIASA and the Club
of Rome,  but also with active links to Kaldor's circles as
Britain's Cambridge University,  in King's College and the
Apostles.
     About the same time--1966-1968,  Soviet intelligence assets
among nominally "Marxist" organizations in various nations began
dropping as much of their Marxian rhetoric as was needed to move
with more or less full energy into the causes of
"environmentalism" and "leftist" support for the rock-drug-sex
counterculture. This included the Socialist International. At
first,  this was characteristic of the "youth affiliates" of such
lefist organizations,  plus a variety of "Marxist" intellectuals
retooled for the undertaking. It became more generalized as the
leftist youth leaders of the 1960s became the left celebrities of
the 1970s and 1980s.
     Case in point is the West Germany Green Party,  a radical
malthusian cult directly funded by Moscow through East Germany
funds conduited via the Communist Party of West Germany,  and
through other channels,  too. This party,  now commanding more
than five percent of the vote,  is the political umbrella and
cheering-section for sundry riotous projects run under immediate
direction of Soviet GRU (military intelligence) agents. Yet,  the
Green Party is also an area in which well-known western
intelligence figures play a prominent role,  either directly
within,  or through de facto channels of cooperation and support.
     In intelligence parlance,  the Green Party is a "derivative
operation." By that,  one signifies an operation which is an asset
of both western and Soviet intelligence services, without being
entirely one or the other. Rifkin's operations are such a
"derivative operation." This is shown by the pattern of his
targetting of specific Soviet strategic objectives inside the
U.S.A.,  as he has done in the case of EM weapons- research.
Weaken the agro-industrial potential of the U.S., most
emphatically those interests tied to patriotic traditionalist
political forces and the "military-industrial complex" in
particular. Weaken the military. At the same time,  stage a
relentless effort to search out and destroy every important area
of scientific research,  preferably while it is still in the
hatching-stage and thus relatively most vulnerable.
     Is Jeremy Rifkin a counterintelligence problem? Yes. Short of
catching him red-handed in violation of laws,  what should we do
about his activities? Essentially,  recognize them for what they
are,  shun his efforts as one shuns the proffers of a
prostitute--for those not otherwise persuaded, we add,  especially
a suspected IV drug-user in this era of the HIV virus.
     In a political democracy,  all sorts of obnoxious rhetoric
must be tolerated,  simply because it is dangerous to entrust the
determination of "obnoxious" to enforcement agencies. In this
case,  the determination of obnoxiousness is objective:  Rifkin
represents a foul,  proximately satanic influence,  which,  if
tolerated,  assures the destruction of this nation.  Do you wish
our nation to survive;  then,  do not allow his influence to
penetrate our policy-shaping.

                          The Environment

     Beyond Rifkin as such,  our economy,  as well as our national
defense will be crippled as long as the present trend of
interpretation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
persists.
     "Clean environment,"  with "clean water,"  "clean air," and
lucious foliage abounding,  are seductive imageries. Properly
defined,  they are not only desirable conditions,  but
indispensable ones. The trouble is,  the way in which these goals
have been interpreted,  is contrary to all sense.
     From a sane standpoint,  as distinct from an
"environmentalist" one,  the United States is becoming an
environmental nightmare. Essentially,  the basic economic
infrastructure of the suburban and urban areas,  and national
infrastructure as a whole,  has been in a net state of decay,  now
bordering upon rot,  since 1970. Approximately $4 trillions must
be spent, even to bring basic economic infrastructure up to 1970
levels of quality. Savage lowering of the income margins of farms
and industries,  and obstruction of adequate and clean sources of
increased energy-supplies,  is miring us in filth.
     Typical,  during a period in which industrial indexes have
been collapsing,  "environmentalists" claim that industry has
created a threat to the trees. Closer examination shows that
tree-death is either simply a repetition of cycles older than the
industrial revolution,  or a result of undernourishment (lack of
fertilization!) of depleted soils. As always,  the spread of
bankruptcy and misery around the nation,  all in the name of
--now--"sixty-five months of uninterrupted recovery,"  produces
filth and decay,  as bankrupting of once-prosperous farms produces
dust-bowls,  and as bankrupting of industry and spread of misery
among increasing rations of the general population must always
produce filth and decay.
     In sum,  the chief environmental dangers come not from
industries',  laboratories',  or the Pentagon's doing that to
which Rifkin vociferously objects. The chief danger to the
environment comes from measures which Rifkin and his ilk applaud:
shutting down energy production,  and productive employment
generally.
     Before Rifkin opens his mouth again,  he should be obliged to
undergo a strict Environmental Impact Study on the consequences of
his characteristic activities.
     Otherwise,  by successfully eliminating about five billions
persons from the present levels of human population. Rifkin's
policies might bring us into that Rousseauvian utopia, a
"primitive hunting and gathering society,"  which is the logical
end-result of Rifkin's course of action.

came the left celebrities of
the 1970s and 1980s.
     Case in point is the West Germany Green Party,  a radical
malthusian cult directly funded by Moscow through East Germany
funds conduited via the Communist Party of West Germany,  and
through other channels,  too. This party,  now commanding more
than five percent of the vote,  is the political umbrella and
cheering-section for sundry riotous projects run under immediate
direction of Soviet GRU (military intelligence) agents. Yet,  the
Green Party is also an area in which well-known western
intelligence figures play a prominent role,  either directly
within,  or through de facto channels of cooperation and support.
     In intelligence parlance,  the Green Party is a "derivative
operation."