Author Archives: Pierre Beaudry

The current axiomatic change in world politics is generating one of the most significant political forms of coincidence of opposites in history. Not only is the fallacy of the centennial opposition between communism and capitalism coming to an end, but the millennial oligarchical fight between Zeus and Prometheus is also coming to its historical resolution.

What is about to change in the world today is greater than what led to the two World Wars of the last century. My last report indicated that the reunification of the two Koreas was the singularity that opened up a new world of possibilities; the present report aims at helping the reader to understand how LaRouche and Cusa provided the means to resolve such conflicts.

Such an historical moment calls for the rediscovery of LaRouche’s idea of the transfinite; an idea that Nicholas of Cusa wrote about in his last dialogue of 1464, entitled De Apice Theoria, in which he identified God as Possibility Itself (Posse Ipsum), which he understood as the One of the Many.

NICHOLAS OF CUSA AND LYNDON LAROUCHE’S CONCEPT OF THE TRANSFINITE

It is not generally easy to solve paradoxes, yet people around the world are beginning to do it in a natural way and the echoes of the resolution of Nicholas of Cusa’s “coincidence of opposites” is resounding more and more everywhere, ever since the world began to witness the end of Liberal Democracies.

The Brexit decision, the Trump election, and now, the recent Italian elections in favor of The League and Five Stars Coalition all reflect the profound axiomatic transformation which has now begun to shape the governing political pattern across Europe and the Americas.

The pattern corresponds to Edgar Allan Poe’s idea of the unity of a synoeretic contraction between the idea of democracy and the idea of a Republic giving birth to the idea of a New Democratic Republic. These anomalies have become the expressions of a new peaceful form of political unity coming together in the wake of the axiomatic breakdown of the old geopolitical system of democracy.

THE NEW PARADIGM, KOREA, AND THE CUSA COINCIDENCE OF OPPOSITES

LaRouche began his 2009 speech with a sweeping overview of the world history determining the present conflict:

“I shall suggest it is an error to talk a Middle East policy. That is, I think, one of the reasons we have a problem with the Middle East is, we keep talking about a Middle East policy. Instead of talking about a conflict in the so-called Middle East, we should talk about the Middle East as a conflict, and a conflict that is largely global, especially within the context of nearby European and related civilization. . . Don’t look at the Israeli-Arab conflict. Don’t ignore it, but don’t look at it. Because the conflict is not determined by the Israelis or the Arabs. It’s determined by international forces which look at this region. How? As a crossover point between the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean, the relationship of Europe to Asia, the relationship of Europe to East Africa, and so forth.”

https://youtu.be/e_doF6bAqGE

Upon my return to the United States from Canada and reading the morning Ottawa Citizen of April 28, 2018 at the Ottawa airport, I realized that the headline of the historical handshake between North Korean leader, Kim Jong Un, and South Korean leader, Moon-Jae-in, at the military Demarcation Line that had divided their two regions at Panmunjom for the last 68 years, represented a new form of the Peace of Westphalia.

THE WESTPHALIAN SIGNIFICANCE OF THE KOREAN PEACE PROCESS

The effort at which your mind attempts to know the future is the best exercise you will ever make, because if you don’t attempt the impossible, how can you discover the future? How can you discover what the next step in human progress is going to be? Are you going to make a guess among several deductive options? Are you going to wait for the future to come to you or are you going to use your mind as Lyndon LaRouche has been doing in his successful forecasting for the last five decades? The question comes down to this: “How does LaRouche do it?”

WHAT IS THE NEXT STEP?