His thinking processes are sometimes summed up in his concept of the “coincidence of opposites.” Instead of starting his thought process from accumulated sense perceptions and deducing law from observed appearances, Cusa starts with the hypothesis that there must be an original potential from which all multiplicity derives. By starting from the top, or “the Origin,” Cusa was able to solve previously insoluble problems.
For example, his idea that the “right to govern comes from the consent of the governed” was not only the basis for solving clashes within the Catholic Church, and even the attempt to reunify all of the various Christian churches at the Council of Florence, but also lay at the heart of the experiments in government set up in the New England colonies of North America and the later creation of the United States Constitution.
Besides the title work “On the Peace of Faith” which resolves the conflicts among the religions, 17 other papers are translated into English--14 for the first time.
The ongoing renaissance in the study of Cusa worldwide is the basis for resolving the conflicts which still plague the world.
William F. Wertz, Jr. was born on July 28, 1945 in Summit, New Jersey. He received an academic scholarship to attend Wesleyan University in Middletown, Connecticut. While at Wesleyan he was enrolled in the College of Letters. During the first semester of his sophomore year he studied abroad in Vienna, Austria and at the University of Cologne in West Germany. He graduated from Wesleyan University in 1967 Magna Cum Laude, Phi Beta Kappa, with a Bachelor of Arts degree. He received a National Education and Defense Act Fellowship to study English at Harvard University, but left Harvard before receiving a graduate degree.
In 1971 he joined the political movement founded by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., because he agreed with LaRouche that world peace could only be established on the basis of a commitment to eliminating the underlying causes of war, through the economic and cultural development of all mankind.
In 1984 he began to coordinate a project for the Schiller Institute to translate the works of the German poet Friedrich Schiller into English. He has since then been the editor and primary translator of four books of translations of the works of Schiller published in paperback form. These works include translations of the dramas Don Carlos, Wilhelm Tell, and the Virgin of Orleans, numerous poems, and such aesthetical writings as On the Aesthetical Education of Man.
He is currently the Editor-in-Chief of Fidelio, a journal of poetry, science, and statecraft, published quarterly by the Schiller Institute beginning in 1992.
However, across the “developing world," especially in China, leaders eager to overcome backwardness sought out answers to questions such as: “How did America become a powerful, productive force in the world?” “How can we apply LaRouche’s ideas to overcome our own problems and secure a better future for our people?”
Many of the answers are found in this book, first published in 2000. Much of it was written in response to questions or requests from the “developing world.” The biggest question which this book answered was “How can we get around the strangulation of International Monetary Fund (IMF) conditionalities so we can actually begin to build up our nations?”
After a long detour down the suicidal path of “post-industrial society,” Americans too face almost the same problem today as did the “developing countries” before they adopted LaRouche’s ideas for Hamiltonian banking on a global scale to bypass the IMF. Will America finally give up subservience to Wall Street and London imperial banking and join with the New Paradigm of LaRouche’s Hamiltonian World Land-Bridge development banks?
The answer to that question is in this book and in your decision to take some responsibility to ensure that America returns to its Hamiltonian roots.
The author is the founder and contributing editor of Executive Intelligence Review magazine, whose forecasts for the US. economy have been the most accurate in the history of economics.
Join David Ponder on his incredible journey to discover the Seven Decisions for Success that can turn any life around, no matter how hopeless a situation may seem. A New York Times, Wall Street Journal, USA Today, and Publisher’s Weekly bestseller, The Traveler’s Gift is the continuation of David Ponder’s story in The Traveler’s Summit.
Unlike all of the other leading candidates for the U.S. presidency since 1945, I am an influential original thinker. This is not to suggest that such prospective candidates as Vice President George Bush and Senator Robert Dole are lacking in intelligence or executive abilities. For the past forty years, the successful candidates for the presidency have been persons who, in the customary manner of speaking, advanced their political career up to that point, by doing “the right thing at the right time,” saying and doing nothing which will make enemies among important factions of the “establishment.” Bush and Dole, for example have adapted to those rules for success under ordinary conditions.
However, this is a crisis; in such crises, what is customarily successful becomes a failure. Our nation has once again entered into a time when only the unusual succeeds, and the usual fails. We have entered into a period of crisis in which only original thinkers are qualified to lead.
On paper, our nation is a constitutional democratic republic. In reality, it has not been such a republic for approximately one hundred years, certainly not since the sweeping changes in our form of government introduced during the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt. Most of the time, the policies of government, the selection of most leading candidates for federal office, and the majority of popular opinion, have been regulated by behind-the-scenes committees representing what is called “the establishment.”
Under this arrangement, candidates for leading office present themselves, like job applicants for corporate executive appointments, to this “establishment.” The “establishment” either gives such candidates permission to campaign, or “not at this time.” If given such permission, the candidate so “authorized” seeks backing for his or her election by the “establishment,” by proving to the “establishment” that he or she can “sell” the policy which the establishment has decided to push at that time.
... I began to understand this in 1947. ... I wished General Dwight Eisenhower to campaign for the 1948 Democratic nomination. The general replied to me, stating agreement with my policy arguments in support of his candidacy, but informing me his candidacy was not appropriate at that time. There is no doubt that Eisenhower could have won the 1948 nomination and election by a landslide, had the “establishment” permitted him to campaign. …