David Dobrodt

With guest speaker Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst and co-founder of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

This week's Fireside Chat featured guest speaker Jason Ross of LaRouche's scientific research team. Have you been told that consumption and development destroy nature? That resources are limited? That climate change is soon to reach a point of no return?The truth is that through economic development, especially in areas of infrastructure platforms and public health, climate catastrophes kill fewer people and cause less damage than a century ago. Overall, fossil fuels are fantastic for human health -- they've allowed life spans to expand by decades.Piercing the lies behind the green religion of the Great Reset reveals a beautiful world of unlimited resources, the absolute end of poverty, and increasing power in space.

We present this video to introduce you to the Schiller Institute’s ongoing series of conferences designed to make sure you understand and know how to defeat what is called the “rules based international order” perpetrated by those would be masters of the planet who have deliberately robbed us of tens of millions of lives through disease, famine, war, and other products of the under-development they insist on.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche gave the following interview today to the “World Today” broadcast of ChinaPlus, the English website of China Radio International. ChinaPlus: Chinese President Xi Jinping is calling on China and European countries to expand consensus and cooperation to jointly cope with global challenges. He made the remarks at a virtual summit with French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The Chinese leader says what the world needs is mutual respect and a sincere cooperation among nations. Xi Jinping: At present, the global pandemic situation remains severe, with frequent resurges. The prospects for economic recovery are uncertain and there is still a long way to go. The world more than ever needs mutual respect and close collaboration, rather than suspicion and technism or zero-sum game. ChinaPlus: During the meeting, the German and French leaders expressed their support for the conclusion of the EU-China investment agreement, and adding that they hoped the 23rd EU-China summit would take place as soon as possible. For more on this, we are joined by Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder of the Schiller Institute, a global political and economic think tank headquartered in Germany. Thanks for joining us, Helga. Helga Zepp-LaRouche: Yes, hello; good day. ChinaPlus: So, what’s your main takeaway from this virtual summit, and what’s your assessment of the overall tone of the meeting? Zepp-LaRouche: I think, from everything one can say, is that it was very constructive, and also much needed, because there were some recent difficulties after the European Parliament blocked the EU-China investment agreement. So, I think that they discussed the possibility of reviving it is very positive. Mrs. Merkel said that she wants to have this revived as soon as possible. And President Macron said that he supports the conclusion of the China-EU investment agreement. So, I think it was very useful and productive.ChinaPlus: The summit is coming at an increasingly tense moment for EU and China ties, given that the EU’s recent sanctions against China and its interference in the country’s internal affairs. So, will this call lead to a shift in the EU’s approach to relations with China? And possibly, easing confrontations between the two sides? Zepp-LaRouche: Yes, I think it will. And I think it’s also important that this comes only four days after the very hysterical statement coming from the Lithuanian Foreign Minister Landsbergis, who had on Friday last week called for an end of the French-German dominance of the EU. He wanted to have a unified EU policy on China, which in his terms means against China. He even said that he wants to set up offices in Taiwan. So, I think this was a clear rebuttal of this position of Landsbergis. So I think that that was very useful. ChinaPlus: What’s your assessment of the current EU policy on China in general? Do you think that the tough stance recently taken by the EU side against China needs to change? As we know, China became the world’s largest EU trading partner last year, overtaking the U.S. European business leaders have expressed their hope that the EU will strengthen cooperation with China, rather than shut it out and decouple. Zepp-LaRouche: Yes, I think such a change is really very urgent, because, as it was mentioned by President Xi Jinping, the world is still confronted with a very serious pandemic. We have a world famine of biblical dimension, as the head of the World Food Program, Beasley, is calling it. We have a hyperinflation danger in the Western countries. As you can see with the situation in Afghanistan, there needs to be an urgent cooperation for economic development in the entire region of Southwest Asia, because otherwise, there is a danger of a new explosion of terrorism, and also the drug problem is very big. So, I think there are so many common aims of mankind in a world which is very fragile, and therefore, I think that these three important countries—China, France, and Germany—make steps to really mend fences and work together more closely, can only be welcomed in the interest of humanity as a whole. ChinaPlus: We see many European politicians have emphasized the differences between China and the EU, but President Xi is calling on China and the EU to adhere to the norms of mutual respect, and to handle differences appropriately. So, were the differences between the two sides addressed during the talks? And how can the two sides resolve their differences? Zepp-LaRouche: Yes, I think some of the differences were clearly addressed. For example, China is always emphasizing the need to stick to the UN Charter and international law, while some Western politicians always talk about a “rules-based order,” which, if you look at it more closely, has turned out to be a rather arbitrary definition of pursuing the interests of some groups. So, I think that was addressed—at least from the read-out, one can say that. And also, it was stressed by China that the intention of China is not to replace anybody else, but to focus on its own development. But I think there was one aspect in the discussions which I thought was particularly promising: Namely, that they seem to have focussed on a joint mission, which helps countries and people to always overcome their bilateral or trilateral difficulties. In this case, the focus was on Africa, that China and Germany and France would work together. That Germany, for example, said they were considering to join the initiative on partnership for African development. I think President Xi not only pointed to the severe situation of Africa, because of the pandemic and economic hardships resulting out of that, but he also said that Africa has the greatest development potential. He has stressed that in the past, in summits with African leaders, and I think this is absolutely true. The African continent has a very young average population, which means that if you provide them with jobs and economic opportunities, they can become really an economic engine in the next generations. That positive look on Africa is generally lacking in Europe, and I think therefore the populations of Germany and France and other European countries can only profit from the optimistic perspective that China has towards Africa. I think this can only have a positive effect. ChinaPlus: Another key factor crucial for China-EU relations nowadays is the U.S. factor. We’ve noticed increasingly frequent interactions between the U.S. and the EU, with Washington trying to rally its European allies against China. Do you think the call emanating from the summit is sending a signal from France and Germany that they are refusing to align themselves with the U.S. bipolar confrontation? Zepp-LaRouche: I would think so, because as you know, there was just the G7 summit, where Biden had travelled to England, and this was an effort to unite the allies in this stance against Russia and China. But Chancellor Merkel had always stressed in the recent period that she does not like to be pulled in one or the other direction, and forced to choose sides, and that she supports a multilateral world order. So, I think this is definitely a positive signal. One would hope that the Europeans really understand that it’s in their self-interest to have such a balanced view, to say the least. ChinaPlus: But some observers believe the U.S. has more power over the EU than that of Germany and France combined, so the change of attitudes from Germany and France won’t make much of a difference in the EU’s China policy. How do you look at this? Zepp-LaRouche: The EU right now is very disunited You had the Dutch leader, Rutte, who wants to kick out Orban from Hungary, and Hungary out of the EU. Then, Slovenia just took over the EU Presidency for the next six months, and he clearly is supporting Hungary, and backs the Hungarian view that they don’t like cultural interventions, interference with their value set, whereby Western European countries try to impose their liberal views, while the East European countries are more traditional. I think if they keep doing these kinds of things—and von der Leyen then attacked Slovenia, and then you have the disunited Baltic states and Poland. I think the EU right now is not in a strong position at all. I think the thing which will, I’m pretty sure, dominate in the future will be the self-interest of these countries. For Germany, for France, and also the other European countries, the economic interest in a world which is in a turmoil, the relation with China is clearly a factor of stability. This is what the German industry wants for the most part. I think also the United States may change. The United States has pursued policies in the last 20 years which were not really in the interests of the United States itself, as you can see by what happened in Afghanistan, where a war was fought for 20 years, and absolutely nothing came out, other than misery, death, and a lot of cost. So, maybe the United States can also start to change, and see that cooperation is more in their interest than confrontation. I know this is not the dominant policy right now, but things are changing very, very rapidly. I would really hope that the new paradigm of international relations gets into the minds of political leaders, because confrontation can only lead to a disaster. Anyway, I think we are in a flux. We are in an historic moment of dramatic change, and a lot depends on good initiatives which people have to influence the situation for the better. ChinaPlus: OK, thank you very much, Helga. That was Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder of the Schiller Institute, a global political and economic think tank headquartered in Germany.

Paul Gallagher of Executive Intelligence Review documents the deliberate policy of hyperinflation followed by deflation practiced by Hjalmar Schacht, President of the [German] Central Bank (Reichsbank) 1933–1939. The same policy is being practiced today by Mark Carney, former head of the Bank of England, in a policy he calls "Regime Change," which intends to subvert the power of sovereign governments and replace it with policies of central banks. The policy has only one conclusion as demonstrated in the horrors of Germany during WW2. Learn more about the Great Reset and how to defeat this policy of genocide.

Dennis Speed and Harley Schlanger discuss the implications of Edward Snowden's recent discovery concerning why by most people avoid deliberating about the root causes of actual conspiracy practices. Instead, the population and media, in general, favor obsessing over childish conspiracy theories. Why? Lyndon LaRouche's method of placing current developments in the context of the fight over the image of man of the past 3000 years is the key to subverting the propagation of fake British-authored conspiracy theories dominating popular culture and mass media today. Sign up for weekly updates from Harley Schlanger.

Join us LIVE on Saturday at 2pm EDT. Today's meeting will feature Dennis Speed and Harley Schlanger.

In July, 2001, the newly-elected President, George H. W. Bush, met with President Vladimir Putin. At the time, there was a hard-line push from the neo-cons to dump the ABM Treaty with Russia - so as to begin building missile-defense systems close to the Russian border, and so to pin down a potential Russian response to a first-strike nuclear attack. However, the transparent argument presented to Putin was that the US had to withdraw from the treaty so as to build new ABM systems to counter of the danger coming from "rogue states"such as Iran. Such systems, supposedly, would need to be placed in eastern Europe, so as to protect western Europe. (At one point, Putin attempted to ‘call the bluff’ of this charade about Iran, by offering the United States, a joint ABM system in southern Russia, significantly closer to the Iranian border. The silent response to Putin’s offer was deafening.) Putin was clear then, and has been clear for twenty years, that the US and Russia could collaborate against rogue states, but that ABM systems deployed on the Russian border, against a potential Russian counter-strike, was intolerably destabilizing. In the July, 2001 meeting, Putin offered Bush that Russia would agree to the US leaving the ABM Treaty, if a new treaty dealing with the amount of offensive nuclear weapons were put in place - something Bush evidently found agreeable.Back in Washington, the Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, and the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, John Bolton, became concerned that Bush wasn’t fully on board. The two went to Moscow a couple of weeks later to make clear that the US was withdrawing from the ABM Treaty without any new treaty. Rumsfeld’s meeting with Sergei Ivanov, the Defense Secretary, left Ivanov cold. Afterwards, Rumsfeld was allowed to meet with Putin, but to no avail. According to Bolton, Putin countered. "Putin raised the prospect of Russia’s joining NATO, saying, ‘We are being pushed out the system of civilized Western defense.’" Putin hit the nail on the head. Rumsfeld and Bolton indeed meant to push a "Clash of Civilizations," even if it involved thermonuclear saber-rattling.The Rumsfeld/Bolton message was not being well received. After more than a few hours of such an impasse, the Russians simply dropped the "LaRouche card." General Yuri Baluyevsky, the Deputy Chief of the General Staff, and the one in charge of negotiations with NATO over missile defense, asked Rumsfeld and Bolton if they knew who had actually originated Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative – a real offer for Russia and America to collaborate on a strategic defense, that would render nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete. Evidently, Rumsfeld and Bolton were ignorant, feigned ignorance, or simply froze. The General went on - it was "an economist named Lyndon LaRouche." Message delivered.Neither Rumsfeld nor Bolton spoke publicly about this intervention until years later, and then they pretended that General Baluyevsky was simply an Internet conspirophile. This is the Russian General in charge of missile defense negotiations, a man who was in no way ignorant of the Reagan SDI offer and of LaRouche’s role in back-channel discussions with the Russian authorities over the SDI. Rumsfeld’s 2011 memoir, "Known and Unknown gave his version: "At a dinner with Ivanov and senior Russian military officials, General Yuri Baluyevsky, then the country's second-ranking military officer, regaled us with a fascinating 'fact' I suspect he may have learned from the internet. The brains behind the U.S. missile-defense system he declared, as if he had unearthed an embarrassing secret, was 'an economist named Lyndon LaRouche.' ... To my knowledge, his influence on the American missile defense program was nil. I made an effort to correct the record for the assembled Russians. But the encounter was troubling. It was not in either of our interests that Russian military leaders should lack such basic knowledge about the United States and the ways American officials think and operate."Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky, Rumsfeld’s internet hound, shortly after this became Putin's First Deputy Minister of Defense and the Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces. Rumsfeld shocked and awed, i.e., blitzkrieged, the country into a victory that just won't go away.

Join Diane Sare, U.S. Senate candidate for NY, 2022, on Friday at 7:30pm.