Fast-moving changes in the international strategic situation require that we direct our attention to answering this essential question: How are ideas, such as “The Committee for the Coincidence of Opposites” intervention into the world health crisis, and “Operation Ibn Sina,” a military-strategic, as well as philosophical alternative to the lethal geopolitics of Southwest Asia, intended to transform the present, clearly failing complex of “credible policy options” in order to secure, not only durable human survival, but even unprecedented economic prosperity? In other words, is it true that under certain circumstances, an idea, representing a deeper, unseen, higher, “poetic” principle, can take the form of an effective policy, perhaps embraced by much, even all of humanity, such that imperfect people and leaders, “even whilst they deny and abjure, are yet compelled to serve, that power which is seated on the throne of their own soul?”
Three developments in the past 48 hours indicate the potential for great, profound, and lasting change. These developments also show that those operating from the “higher manifold” of creative reason, can not only out-think, but also out-flank, those who don’t.
First: the Russian rejection, accompanied by the “billion-people-plus” nations of India and China, of the United Nations Security Council resolution declaring that “climate change is a global security threat.” This counters the geopolitical policy thrust that has been in the works for years to substitute the slogan “climate change” for “resource scarcity,” the earlier argument of documents like “National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests.” Those three nations, representing 40% of the people on the planet, defended those that were too weak, beaten down, or divided to stand up for themselves.
Russia and China in particular are aware that “The 2019 Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community” report was written after the sabotage of the panel that was to be chaired, at the request of President Donald Trump, by physicist William Happer, who was assigned to the National Security Council. The panel was intended to question the false scientific narrative concerning the “link” between carbon emissions and global warming. Trump had rejected the 2017 Threat Assessment, which had originally made the same claim, and had brought Happer into the administration in 2018. Before Happer’s committee could even meet, however, it was sabotaged—probably by the CIA, according to one source—and the review was never done.
The 2019 report concluded that climate change is man-made, and a significant threat to national security. On page 23, it states:“Global environmental and ecological degradation, as well as climate change, are likely to fuel competition for resources, economic distress, and social discontent through 2019 and beyond…. Diminishing Arctic sea ice may increase competition—particularly with Russia and China—over access to sea routes and natural resources.” On page 24, one page later, under the title “Regional Threats: China and Russia,” it states:“China and Russia will present a wide variety of economic, political, counterintelligence, military, and diplomatic challenges to the United States and its allies. We anticipate that they will collaborate to counter US objectives, taking advantage of rising doubts in some places about the liberal democratic model.”That was what was actually out-flanked by Russia, China, and, in a different way, India, in their action at the United Nations on Monday.
Second, the Atlantic Council on Monday published an Open Letter to President Biden entitled “Afghanistan is about to collapse. Here’s what the US must do about it.” It was signed by 13 US diplomats and military personnel, including Ryan Crocker, James Cunningham, James Dobbins, David Petraeus, and others. It includes the following passages:
“In addition to food and medicine, Afghanistan needs a stable medium of exchange and a functioning banking system to avoid experiencing widespread economic and governance failure. Health professionals, teachers, and other essential workers need to be paid if the most basic functions of the state are to be maintained. Ordinary Afghans deserve access to their own funds, now frozen in banks wary of US and international sanctions and the potential collapse of the Afghan financial system.”
Sounds positive, right? Then, "… discussions are underway in Washington and elsewhere to explore various means of stabilizing the Afghan currency and averting the collapse of the banking system without providing the Taliban with discretionary resources that could be used for nefarious purposes. Good ideas for how to do so are available, including proposals by former US ambassadors, USAID directors, and World Bank officials, among others. Because any scheme along these lines will be very controversial, and no system of controls will be perfect, what is needed is the courage to act.
Whenever you hear the phrase “courage to act” from these circles, who “act” everywhere in the world, all the time, often in your name, and without your permission, take heed, and proceed with caution. Those who have read Confessions of An Economic Hit-Man by John Perkins can recognize the thinking here. There is no necessary intention of stabilizing the nation of Afghanistan indicated here, actually—but there is, on the other side, another important, influential factor. “The longer decisions are postponed, the more difficult it will become to prevent the looming humanitarian catastrophe in the country and the deaths of many Afghans”—deaths which will be on the hands of the United States, NATO, and those that have refused “Operation Ibn Sina,” or any real emergency collaboration with the nations of the area. Operation Ibn Sina is such a collaboration, proposed by Helga Zepp-LaRouche, and involving Pakistan, the United States, China, and Russia, as well as Uzbekistan and all the nations surrounding Afghanistan. Such a collaboration, especially in light of the Putin-Biden discussions of the tensions occurring at the border of Ukraine and Russia; the military experience of both Russia and the United States in Afghanistan; and the possibility of collaborating with “opposites” for the purpose of doing something good, for the benefit of the other, and members of another faith, particularly at the Christmas season, should be even more intensely pursued. Operation Ibn Sina, as “unlikely” as it might appear, is a war-winning strategy, against the real enemies—“poverty, famine, disease, and war itself.”
Third, evidence rigorously compiled in Denmark and Norway regarding the omicron variant of the coronavirus, indicates that those with even two vaccinations are infected by it at very high rates. This poses the obvious question: what if omicron were as deadly as the Delta virus, which it appears to not be? What would we do about it? Even without that, what is about to happen to the hospital systems of the world, which are about to be flooded with cases of omicron—and perhaps, any day, a more lethal variant? The Dr. Jocelyn Elders call for a world dialogue and symposium to catalyze an emergency world economic platform, as impractical as it sounds, is the “canopy of victory” under which the world’s weakest and strongest, wealthiest and poorest, must meet, if we are to survive.
Lyndon LaRouche said in December 1985: “In a true republic, the true citizen is personally accountable to the Creator, for the outcome of that republic; for the outcome of the general welfare, as it affects all persons in that republic; for the outcome, thus, of every personal life in that republic, and the outcome of the role of that republic in the world; for the welfare of humanity as a whole, and of every individual personality, present and future, of humanity as a whole. The individual citizen of a republic is personally accountable to the Creator, to the extent that that individual either has the capacity to influence the course of events, or can develop the capacity needed to influence the course of events.” We may deny and abjure, but we may also serve the higher power of reason and beauty that, if we are fortunate, will, “even in our despite,” sit and preside upon the throne of our souls.