March 18—Today we point to the re-emergence of Britain’s Tony Blair, the “Knight of the Garter” who declared at the Chicago Board of trade in 1999 the “end of the Westphalian Order” and the beginning of a set of British-inspired atrocities, from the bombing of the Chinese Embassy in former Yugoslavia, to the 2003 Iraq War, the 2011 assassination of Gaddafi and subsequent destruction of Libya, the 20-year occupation of Afghanistan, etc. |
Feb. 8—We begin by providing a short report, otherwise unavailable to Americans, of what went on in the six- hour discussions that occurred several days ago between Presidents Vladimir Putin of Russia and Emmanuel Macron of France. It should be noted that simultaneously with these discussions, President Joe Biden was meeting with Chancellor Olaf Scholz of Germany. Prior to their respective meetings with the United States and Russia, Scholz and Macron had spoken on the phone, and they also spoke on the phone immediately after those meetings had concluded. Macron then went to Ukraine to meet with President Zelensky, and was to return to Germany to consult with Chancellor Scholz after that meeting.President Putin: "I am deeply grateful to Mr President for discussing these matters in Moscow today. I believe that these security matters concern not only Russia but also Europe and the world as a whole. “Look, our proposals include not only NATO’s expansion, which we oppose, but also a second point: the non-deployment of offensive systems near our borders. If everyone wants peace, tranquility, well-being and confidence, what is bad about not deploying offensive weapons near our borders? Can anyone tell me what is bad about this? “If NATO is a peaceful organization, what is bad about returning its infrastructure to the level of 1997, when the NATO-Russia Act was signed? This would create conditions for building up confidence and security. Is this bad? “We can let the open-door pledge be, even though the issue remains on the agenda. It is a key priority for us, and I have explained why. We talked about this for six hours. “Tomorrow, President Macron will fly to Kiev. We have agreed that he will at least put forth his action plan regarding this. I am deeply grateful to him for giving so much attention to this and that he is trying to find a solution to this matter of great importance to all of us.” President Macron:… "I think that it is first of all France’s responsibility to have the strongest possible relationship with Russia. We are two great European nations and great world powers. We are two permanent members of the UN Security Council. “Bilateral relations are of great importance for us, firstly, to have them develop, and to have common decisions on acute international issues. We are trying to do so on the Iranian issue and attempting to find a point of contact on Libya and other matters. We do have disagreements but we still find compromise. This is obvious to me. “Secondly, I think that President Putin and I agree that Russia is a European country. Those who can see Europe should be able to work with Russia and find ways to build the future in Europe and with Europeans. Is it easy? No, but Europe was also created through difficult initiatives that had immediate effects. So, yes, we do have difficulties but we must not give up. “Finally, this is France’s mission, it is its role. During these six months we are presiding in the European Union. Our role is to make the voice of the European Union heard and take into account a variety of complex circumstances in communication with such neighbors as Russia, which plays a decisive role in our security, and listen to all Europeans as well. I have been doing this over the past days. Being here I am trying to be the person who can make a contribution to finding this proper way. “I have a simple conviction. Do we increase our collective capability for making peace without our contacts with Russia? No, we do not. Who do we leave this role for? For others. “We do have disagreements. We realize that. Sometimes we fail to move forward and it is the result of such disagreements. However, we are trying to find compromises. I consider it to be my responsibility. Our task is to make sure that these compromises protect the interests of our partners and allies. This is why in the coming days and weeks we must start this difficult work, find new decisions in order to protect these guarantees while still protecting our basic principles and our neighborly relations, because our geography will not change. This is why we carry on.” Serious negotiations and diplomacy have been underway involving a day-to-day dialogue among the heads of state of Germany, France, Russia, and United States, as well as Ukraine, not only to prevent the potential outbreak of war, intended or unintended, but also, in the words of Macron, to “jointly show the will to work on security guarantees and to build a new security and stability order in Europe.” That fact has been suppressed from the consciousness of the American and European citizenry, in favor of media sideshows aptly characterized by Russian spokesman Maria Zhakarova as “psychedelic phobias.” In that vein, “The Ned Price Experience” was once again called out on Monday by reporter Matt Lee, this time supported by a colleague. State Department spokesman Ned Price attempted to falsify his exchange last week with reporter Lee, who had simply asked Price for any evidence to corroborate his “State Department-approved” assertion that Russia had manufactured a “false flag” video depicting an attack by Ukraine on Russia, including using “crisis actors” a la Alex Jones. In Monday’s exchange, in which Price again refused to provide any evidence whatsoever, Lee again asked, “Do you have anything more that you can say to back up the claim than you did— than you had to say last week? That’s all.” Price: “Beyond what we told you last week …in pretty detailed terms about the Russian plans … We don’t have anything further to offer on that.” Second reporter: “Then you’re saying the proof that you’re correct is that nothing is actually going to happen? Is that what you’re saying? … because you putting this out there will have stopped the Russians from doing it, correct?” While the practice of State Department-Speak (StateSpeak) has been previously satirized over decades by authors like Joseph Heller and Kurt Vonnegut, the Ned Price and other responses on Ukraine are now more like the dialogue in “Waiting For Godot—” self-assured opaqueness, unassailable by reason, but internally consistent and therefore “obvious” to the speaker alone. Whatever NATO’s objections to reality, however, last week’s Russia-China agreement underscores a reality that was extensively discussed by Lyndon LaRouche exactly 40 years ago in his “A Fifty Year Development Program for the Pacific Ocean Basin”: the center of gravity of human civilization has shifted to Africa, Asia, and the Indian subcontinent, the homes of more than five billion of the nearly eight billion people on the planet. NATO’s strained “sphere of influence” discussions with respect to China and Russia are the equivalent of using Ptolemy’s discredited epicycles to draw more and more elaborate “revisionings” of an “old, mad, dying imperial world” that is being decisively transcended through investments in advanced power, space, and production systems applied to mining, manufacturing, and agriculture, creating a whole new world platform—and the people who will produce and benefit from this transformation. Those who don’t intend to miss out on Earth’s next fifty years of progress, are “making it clear with their feet” which side of the future they intend to be on. The State Department’s hapless flailing, while it should be derided, must also be taken seriously; it serves to mask the actual foreign policy practice of the United States, its “Iago-like” controller Great Britain, and that of other equally guilty participants, in the ongoing death-by-starvation- and-depraved indifference in Afghanistan and Yemen, most spectacularly, and in the use of sanctions against vulnerable states throughout the world. Attention was called to this in the Monday United Nations Security Council session, in the Open Debate on “General issues relating to sanctions: preventing their humanitarian and unintended consequences.” Unlike Cambodia 1975-79, the world cannot pretend to not know what is happening there. The United States cannot pretend to not be responsible. The individual citizens, armed with social media and other forms of communication, cannot claim that they are powerless or voiceless to stop one of the cruelest forms of murder, starvation. Dante’s Count Ugolino could at least claim that he ate his children out of extreme hunger. Today, we are as Count Ugolino, with respect to our consumption of the lives of perhaps a million or more children in Afghanistan, either because we defend the genocidal policies now under way, or because we fail to overturn them. The Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC) and the Schiller Institute (SI) will be convening a seminar on Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 4 PM Moscow time/2 PM CET/8 AM EST on the topic, “The Humanitarian Crisis in Afghanistan: Toward a Long-term Solution.” Join us and help implement the Institute’s Operation Ibn Sina, not only to save Afghanistan, but to, by that means, save the soul of trans-Atlantic civilization.
|
At the conclusion of a meeting yesterday with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, President Vladimir Putin reported: “Let me note that we are closely analyzing the written responses received from the U.S. and NATO on January 26. However, it is already clear, and I informed Mr. Prime Minister about it, that the fundamental Russian concerns were ignored.” Those concerns, including stopping the eastern expansion of NATO, and reversing and preventing the deployment of strike weapons near Russian borders, are existential for the Russian state. The United States and NATO, it has now become clear, however, do not have the cooperation of the present Ukrainian government for the “defense of democracy” pretext they wished to present to their own largely clueless, mentally-captive populations as justification for their mad adventure.“The march of folly” we are seeing, despite certain efforts which are exceptions to that march, will get us to war, one way or another, if not today, tomorrow, or the day after. Though more and more organizations and individuals are speaking out, opposition to war is not enough. Something original, outside of the geopolitical domain, firmly rooted in the immediate moment but tied to the long-term best interests of humanity, that will restore the very idea of humanity, must be adopted, universally, and now. Thanks to the collaboration of South African, Chinese, and other epidemiologists, we now know that a new bat coronavirus, NeoCov, is capable, under certain circumstances, of transmitting a MERS-CoV-2 like disease to humans with, potentially, the sort of efficiency seen in the Delta and Omicron versions of coronavirus. This has not happened yet, but the proposal recently made by Xi Jinping at Davos for a worldwide collaboration to overcome the impending mass death of millions through as yet unknown, as well as known lethal pandemics, a danger possibly greater than even that last seen 660 years ago with the bubonic plague, is probably the only way that this could be avoided, if it can be avoided at all, at this time. This proposal needs an inspired response from the morally depraved trans-Atlantic sector. The World Health Platform proposal of Helga Zepp- LaRouche, Dr. Joycelyn Elders, and others, is, and has been available. But a morally degenerate elite that has lost the will or moral fitness to survive would never properly respond to Xi jinping in time, particularly if they have just proven themselves incapable of properly responding to Russia, and the immediate danger of accidentally launching thermonuclear war on the planet as a whole—which is what we have seen so far. Nonetheless, the scientific capability to do this exists, and because of the Operation Ibn Sina proposal of the Schiller institute, with respect to Afghanistan and the world generally, a clear plan to do this exists. So why is this really not happening? In a June 1981 EIR document entitled “The Strategic Significance of the Ecumenical Negotiations,” Lyndon LaRouche identified the reasons for the morally depraved character of the Roman Empire and the Roman Republic . “St. Augustine addressed the practical side of the doctrinal issue in his devastating proof that not only the Roman Empire but the City of Rome before the Empire represented a morally degenerate society. Pre-Imperial Rome, according to the Roman historian Livius, was controlled by the Cult of Apollo, the same cult notorious as Aristotle’s master at Delphi, and known in the Middle East by the names of Marduk and Lucifer. Imperial Rome was a result of control of the Roman cults from Ptolemaic Egypt. These were representatives of the forces which the Apostle St. John’s Apocalypse (Revelations) identifies as the ‘Whore of Babylon.’” While the United States is still the world’s oldest and most successful republic, since the death of Franklin Roosevelt in April 1945, America has been culturally dominated in all aspects of policy-making by the Whore, not of Babylon, but of “Perfidious Albion.” In the last weeks and months, whether at the COP 26 Malthusian “Kill Humanity, Save the Planet” fest, or in the Black Sea military chicken game with the Russian fleet, with the AUKUS (Australia-United Kingdom-United States) adventure, or the present mad gambit against Russia in Ukraine, itself the latest incarnation of the never-ending Christopher Steele/ Sir Richard Dearlove/Robert Hannigan/GCHQ “Russiagate” assault on the American Presidency—the City Of London has been in the driver’s seat of. Britain is now deploying the “junior varsity” of the United States State Department, not only for the greater glory of BAE Systems and such, but for the self-destruction of the United States itself. That’s why the policy pronouncements are both insane, and continuous. Perhaps it was Ukrainian President Zelensky’s one undisputed skill, his penchant for comedy, that has led him to realize that the joke has gone too far. He does not intend to incinerate his nation. He and others have seen “up close” the mental difficulty the United States has in facing reality in the form of “the Other,” be that in Syria, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, or Ukraine. A recent example: Take Tony Blinken’s ham-fisted attempt to stop Argentina’s President Fernandez from visiting, first, Putin, and then China’s Xi Jinping, where an MOU on the Belt and Road Initiative is to be signed. On top of that, Brazil’s President Bolsonaro will visit with Putin Feb. 14. Brazilian Vice-President, Gen. Hamilton Mourao (ret.) says that he doesn’t think that Russia plans to invade Ukraine, or that Bolsonaro should not visit Russia because of tensions with the United States. “Let’s remember that Brazil is part of a group with Russia, the BRICS, through which we have a partnership with Russia. Russia is an important country for doing business…and we can’t give that up.” This is the real world, the world of physical economy, the world of what was once termed the American System, but which has been rejected in the United States since the largely-successful 1980s campaign to destroy the reputation and influence of Lyndon LaRouche. In all those areas now in the existential crosshairs—from the spread of lethal pandemics, to the collapse of the international monetary system and what to do about it, to stopping the danger of thermonuclear war though an ecumenical dialogue of cultures, to joint missions on the industrialization of space, and the production of advanced high-density energy platforms based on a revolution in nuclear power plant production, including thorium reactors, HTGR reactors, fission/fusion hybrids,etc.—the writings and campaign of Lyndon LaRouche, featured through the pages of Executive Intelligence Review, has provided a record of what to do, and how to do it. POSTSCRIPT: VERNADSKY, PASTEUR, LAROUCHE In the course of his 1981 discussion of the topic, “The Tragedy of U.S. Education” with a group of academicians in Poland, Lyndon LaRouche may also have provided an idea useful for the next ecumenical and scientific step that could be taken to advance the recent proposal made by President Xi Jinping for an international collaboration of scientists and economists to join together to fight the coronavirus. “Now, we have a case of a very famous Ukrainian-Russian scientist, who probably is one of the most important figures for the 21st Century, Academician Vernadsky. Vernadsky was a student of Curie (the son of Curie, the son-in-law of Pasteur), as well as of [Dmitri] Mendeleyev. Vernadsky went beyond this, but [he was] in the same school of Mendeleyev, of Pasteur, and actually the French school of Arago before them. He went through this, to develop a conception of what he called ‘biogeochemistry.’” “By working in the school of Mendeleyev—he studied originally under Mendeleyev in Petrograd—[he] showed a way of thinking about the relationship between living processes and what we call non-living processes. He demonstrated, for example, that the atmosphere, the oceans, and most of the area on which we live on the surface of the Earth, is a biosphere. These things he called the”natural products of life." That is, one could measure a change in the characteristic of the planet, produced by the continuous action of life, or life transforming the planet. He went further, in his work during the 1930s, and defined what he called the “noösphere,” that is, the action of human cognition in transforming the biosphere, and transforming the relationship of man to the universe. “Vernadsky was also the founder of nuclear science in Russia and Ukraine….” Can the investigation of the work of Vernadsky, and Lyndon LaRouche’s observations on Vernadsky from the standpoint of physical economy, provide a way to initiate an international dialogue that takes up the method of inquiry required to make breakthroughs in the field of biology and medicine, the harnessing of thermonuclear power, and the redefinition of the presently bankrupt notions of ecology and environment, from the standpoint of investigating Vernadsky’s scientific conception of the noösphere? How might that dialogue be proposed by a “Committee for the Coincidence of Opposites” in terms of the collaborations among people in many different nations, and across disciplines, to address both the short-term emergency of saving humanity from an onslaught of infectious disease, and the long-term investigation of the very nature of life, and of creativity as a unique form of life distinct from all others?
|
Executive Intelligence Review, the Daily Alert Service, and other LaRouche publications, including our video, must be vectored, especially in the next days, to asserting the reality of the present danger of total war, including thermonuclear war, and what to do to avert it—even as mistaken distortions in the calm strategic evaluation required in this situation abound in the printed and electronic media, whether through incompetence or design. This begins with accurately reporting, particularly to the largely clueless American people, what the Russian government is actually saying. On Monday, Russian Presidential spokesman Dmitri Peskov said during his briefing: “The head of our state, as the commander-in-chief and the man who defines the foreign policy of our country,.. takes necessary measures to ensure our common security and to protect our interests… It were us who initiated the negotiations, the consultation [on guarantees of security for Russia], and we expect to receive written responses to our proposals, which aim to help us avoid such tense situations in the future.”Peskov refused to speculate on any potential military action that might be initiated, either by Ukraine, or by Russia. He indicated that there was no plan at this point for Biden and Putin to speak again. Those written responses by the United States and by NATO are the clear precondition for anything else. We also insist, emphatically, and as only these publications will, that despite the obvious culpability of the knuckle-dragger factions of American intelligence agencies, including their criminal manipulation of, and deployment into, the United States Congress, the war design that is presently unfolding is British in origin, as it was in Iraq I (Margaret Thatcher,) and Iraq II (Tony Blair.) Today, the hapless Boris Johnson represents the tattered imperial “Remains of the Day” that is the silly “Global Britain” scheme. A vigorous, polemical attack on “the sexual impotence of British liberal imperialism,” on lurid display yesterday in a “senior U.S. administration officials’ special background briefing” on the “incredibly potent” sanctions about to be imposed on Russia, or in Britain’s depraved indifference to defending the General Welfare of British subjects as expressed in the “herd” approach to the coronavirus pandemic, is certainly in order, and would uncomfortably echo through the halls of Buckingham Palace right now. (The now-demoted Andrew was, in fact, the ideal representative of the latter-day British “Great Game.”) The imposition of new sanctions against Russia, now being discussed in the U.S. Congress by Senators Menendez (D-New Jersey) and Risch (R-Idaho,) is also being simultaneously contemplated against China, ostensibly because of the “imperial threat” China may pose to Taiwan. Notably, manic Republican legislators have proposed that these new Russian sanctions should happen now, before any incident even occurs involving military forces at the Ukrainian/Russian border. Sophistries aside, are not sanctions, in fact, an implicit act of war? The present drive towards war was not, in fact, provoked by any recent Russian actions whatsoever. Ukraine’s Natalia Vitrenko documents in her " Open Letter to World Leaders: Stop supplying weapons and using political blackmail to incite Ukraine to war with Russia!" that, “The split in society and deceiving of our population have been intensified by the policy forced upon our country of seeking to join the EU and NATO. In 1991 Ukraine’s sovereignty was recognized by the world community on the basis of the norms and principles set forth in the Declaration on the State Sovereignty of Ukraine, which was twice affirmed by our people in nationwide referendums (17 March and 1 December 1991). The legal force of this Declaration still has precedence…. That means that the world community not only recognized, but is obliged to defend the sovereignty of Ukraine as a neutral, non-bloc state, committed to a foreign policy of creating a union state with the former republics of the USSR….” The reality is that the same Anglo-American intelligence establishment that manufactured the “Russia-gate” hoax, and instigated the overthrow of the duly elected government of Ukraine in February 2014, has partnered with a pro-Nazi grouping to provoke a war on the border of Russia. We should note in this context, recent reference by Chinese spokesmen to a “zero tolerance” policy toward attempts at “color revolutions” in nations such as Kazakhstan, which borders both Russia and China. Various American commentators now warning about the war threat opine that “there is nothing that the United States actually can do to stop a Russian action,” and that “there is no basis to believe that NATO can expect to win a war in this area.” They, however, miss the point. British imperial interests, which dominate the thinking of the United States State Department, realize that their system is doomed unless China and Russia are subjugated—which, however, will bring about planetary doom, not merely monetary doom for an already-dead system. Trans-Atlantic policy no longer follows logic, let alone reason. In an article entitled, “NATO As Religion,” author Alfred de Zayas, professor at the Geneva School of Diplomacy and a U.N. official, states: “I dare postulate the hypothesis that the best way to understand the NATO phenomenon is to see it as a secular religion. Then we are allowed to believe its implausible narratives, because we can take them on faith…. As [with] every religion, the NATO religion has its own dogma and lexicon. In NATO’s Lexicon a”color revolution" is [the same as] a coup d’état, democracy is co-terminous with capitalism, humanitarian intervention entails “regime change,” “rule of law” means OUR rules, “Satan Nr. 1” is Putin, and Satan Nr. 2 is Xi Jinping. Can we believe in the NATO religion? Sure. As the Roman/Carthaginian philosopher Tertullian wrote in the Third Century AD—credo quia absurdum. I believe it because it is absurd “….I dare consider myself a US patriot—and an apostate from the NATO religion—because I reject the idea ‘my country right or wrong.’ I want my country to be right and to do justice—and when the country is on the wrong track, I want it to return to the ideals of the Constitution, of our Declaration of Independence, of the Gettysburg address—something I can still believe in. “NATO has emerged as the perfect religion for bullies and war-mongers.” It is not enough, however, to aspire to “return to” the American Republic. Policies must be formulated now, to deal with the shock of what British monetarist-economist Jeremy Grantholm characterized on January 20 as “the end of the Fed U.S. bubble extravaganza: housing, equities, bonds, and commodities,” the “three-and-a-half super-bubbles collapse.” For the Anglo-Dutch imperial impulse for total war, including thermonuclear war, to be defanged, the American Presidency must publicly reject war with Russia and China. It should consider, and respond positively, to the perspective presented to an apoplectic Davos audience last week by Xi Jinping: " Countries need to strengthen international cooperation against COVID-19, carry out active cooperation on research and development of medicines, jointly build multiple lines of defense against the coronavirus, and speed up efforts to build a global community of health for all….In the context of ongoing COVID-19 response, we need to explore new drivers of economic growth, new modes of social life and new pathways for people-to-people exchange, in a bid to facilitate cross-border trade, keep industrial and supply chains secure and smooth, and promote steady and solid progress in global economic recovery…." Operation Ibn Sina, the World Health Platform policy of the Committee for the Coincidence of Opposites, and the “Four Economic Laws” of Lyndon LaRouche, the most concise statement, and advancement of Hamilton and the American Revolution’s rejection and replacement of British liberal imperialism, are the readily available solution for a rapid move forward by the United States Presidency into the Twenty-first Century, free of the “eighteenth-century methods” of the British Empire that Franklin Delano Roosevelt rejected.
|
The Jan. 17 Schiller Institute international seminar, “Injustice Anywhere Is A Threat To Justice Everywhere: Stop The Murder of Afghanistan,” advanced Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s “Operation Ibn Sina” beyond its initially targeted and already-partly-successful role in “pricking the conscience” of the trans-Atlantic world. In that world of “narratives” and “spin,” governments are presently willfully engaged in the potential “revenge starvation” of millions. But now, with the attempt by that “Adolph Eichmann of medicine,” Ezekiel Emmanuel, to decree that mass death by Covid infection, including through variants yet to be detected, is already “endemic” to the United States, there is already outraged reaction from medical personnel and their unions.“Operation Ibn Sina” is not, and never was only applicable to Afghanistan. It is itself a form of medicine, intended to cure the epidemic of trans-Atlantic “depraved indifference” that, fortunately, has not yet spread to the whole world. “Operation Ibn Sina,” however, may be the only efficient way to prevent mass death from being prescribed for America’s and Europe’s poor, elderly, and immunocompromised, as a “regrettably necessary cost-cutting measure.” If we don’t move to save Afghanistan, and don’t join forces with Russia, China, India, and other nations to establish a World Health Platform over the course of this year, set up any accountant’s lie you like, but “send not to know for whom the bell tolls—it tolls for Thee.” The same day as the Schiller Institute seminar, President Xi Jinping of China addressed the Davos World Economic Forum on the topic, “Forge Ahead with Confidence and Fortitude to Jointly Create a Better Post-COVID World.” Here is an excerpt from his remarks: “We must do everything necessary to clear the shadow of the pandemic and boost economic and social recovery and development, so that the sunshine of hope may light up the future of humanity. “The world today is undergoing major changes unseen in a century. These changes, not limited to a particular moment, event, country or region, represent the profound and sweeping changes of our times. As changes of the times combine with the once-in-a-century pandemic, the world finds itself in a new period of turbulence and transformation. How to beat the pandemic and how to build the post-COVID world? These are major issues of common concern to people around the world. They are also major, urgent questions we must give answers to. As a Chinese saying goes, ‘The momentum of the world either flourishes or declines; the state of the world either progresses or regresses.’ The world is always developing through the movement of contradictions; without contradiction, nothing would exist. The history of humanity is a history of achieving growth by meeting various tests and of developing by overcoming various crises…. …Strong confidence and cooperation represent the only right way to defeat the pandemic. Holding each other back or shifting blame would only cause needless delay in response and distract us from the overall objective. Countries need to strengthen international cooperation against COVID-19, carry out active cooperation on research and development of medicines, jointly build multiple lines of defense against the coronavirus, and speed up efforts to build a global community of health for all. Of particular importance is to fully leverage vaccines as a powerful weapon, ensure their equitable distribution, quicken vaccination and close the global immunization gap, so as to truly safeguard people’s lives, health and livelihoods…." Recall, also, the remarks of Anna Popova, Russian head of the Federal Service for Supervision of Consumer Rights Protection and Human Welfare—effectively Russia’s equivalent to the U.S. Surgeon General—to the December Conference of the nine Commonwealth of Independent States nations, regarding the war against the pandemic. “Considering the proximity of our states, the commonality of epidemic threats and the level of integration, one of our key tasks is to build a unified system for epidemic response and relief,” she said. At that same conference, President Vladimir Putin himself spoke about “joint scientific activities, the development of medications and preventive drugs, as well as exchanges of test kits and means of overcoming this disease.” Dr. Joycelyn Elders proposed the issuance of a “Medical Manifesto” by the Committee for the Coincidence of Opposites at the conclusion of the Martin Luther King Day seminar, to which Helga enthusiastically agreed. The door is now open to the United States population to reclaim the General Welfare clause of the Constitution’s Preamble, and join with other nations to reverse the injustice now unfolding in Afghanistan. Lyndon LaRouche’s 2004 Martin Luther King Day remarks should be read by some, reviewed by others, and heeded by all, to discover the “open secret” as to how our lawful present descent into Hell can be reversed by a lawful re-commitment to the future of humanity, and its prosperity.
|
In recognition of the January 11 birthday of Alexander Hamilton, the inventor of the American System of economics—not “capitalism,” which the Founding Fathers never called it, but the national system of credit, banking and Constitutional law documented in Hamilton’s four Reports, written as the first Secretary of the Treasury, and implemented in the Washington-Hamilton Presidency’s revolution in self-government through economic development—and in celebration of the American System’s challenge to the British East india Company, through the creation of such institutions as the Paterson, New Jersey, Society for Useful Manufactures in implementation of those policies—we present Lyndon Larouche’s 2013 remarks on the principle of Glass-Steagall, the June 1933 legislative action deployed by Franklin Roosevelt to clean up Wall Street, and to put people first.LAROUCHE: OK, what I’ve been pushing, of course, is this program around Glass-Steagall, but pushing it from what I do every Friday night, where I have a regular internet television program internationally, and this is covered. But we’re at the point where we have to immediately install Glass-Steagall. Now, what does that mean? Glass-Steagall was the foundation of the formation of the United States. What we call Glass-Steagall, which was established at that time: Now, that has been destroyed a number of times, that concept, which was set up by the chief organizer of the whole American System, Alexander Hamilton. And his design is the design on which the United States Constitution was premised for action. We have since been destroying that, or ripping it up, again and again, as was done recently, in the terrible years just preceding now; and so, the question is Glass-Steagall now. Now, what that means is, that if we in the United States act with our powers, as citizens of the United States, to ensure that Glass-Steagall is installed in the United States now, we open the gates for a new system of national economy, which other nations will go into, why? Because Glass-Steagall is the only formulation available, in the trans-Atlantic region in particular, which could solve the problems we face now, the economic problems and related problems. So therefore, if we get Glass-Steagall through, then what happens? Europe’s situation is generally hopeless: That is, the governments of Europe, the conditions of their laws and so forth, do not allow them to go directly into Glass-Steagall as an alternative. However, if the United States does that first, reinstalls Glass-Steagall, which is what has to be done now, then, immediately, you have the basis in Glass-Steagall for agreements among other governments, across the Atlantic and so forth, and these agreements mean that you are launching a new world system, which will actually address these kinds of problems. That’s the simple, practical solution: Glass-Steagall, what it means is that all the junk credits are cancelled. The junk is cancelled. And then we go back to a credit system, based on Glass-Steagall in particular, but actually on the original design by Alexander Hamilton of the credit system of the United States. Once we re-establish the credit system of the United States, which had been launched first by Alexander Hamilton, we are on the way home. Because every nation in the world needs that same program as their way out of the chaos. And therefore, we can then, on that basis—and I know what the situation is in China, for example, relative to this; what the situation is in other parts of Asia, and so forth. If we do this, we can turn the tide on the history of the United States, to get back to what we were really intended to become, when we were founded as a republic." Sooner than people may imagine, the necessity of returning to the principle of the American System will be perceived as the only way out, if the United States, or the trans-Atlantic world, will have any chance to survive. Right now, as can be seen in myriad ways, it is gripped by a Nebuchadnezzar-like madness, but this also means that, by losing its reason, it has also “lost the mantle of heaven.” British “Great Game”tricks, such as the ugly deployment of “Afghansi” terrorists to make a “Color Revolution” coup in the nation of Kasakhstan, have failed through resolute, pre-emptive action. The days of the late British Intelligence agent Bernard Lewis and his “Islamic Fundamentalism/ Arc of Crisis” jihad against Russia and China for control of the “Eurasian heartland” are over—though Victoria Nuland and other State Department “creatures from Foggy Bottom” have yet to get the memo. In the midst of the whirlwind of anxiety-creating fast-moving events, which often require analytical methods considerably above the “intellectual pay grade” of the dismally demented media of today, it is important to remain keenly focused on what is actually knowable and changeable in humanity’s dire condition. Therefore, we are re-emphasizing the conclusion of what was said by Helga Zepp LaRouche in the conclusion of her remarks made on Monday: “I always have this image of acting on the basis of Providence. Providence in my view is not something where you somehow have an angel from Heaven, who puts a crown on your head and then you are a Bishop or something. Providence is that you, almost intuitively act on necessity, and one thing Lyn has really taught all of us, is what that means, because Lyn was the man of Providence 100%. He was fearless, he knew the laws of the universe and he acted on it, and that’s why he was so right in his forecasts. That’s why Lyn’s analyses were so absolutely sharp, in being able to forecast events which would occur decades later. And, at the same time, then proposing solutions, always from the top, always from the standpoint of mankind first, of the laws of the universe, and if you internalize that as your parameters, —we don’t know how the solution will come. It could come by a financial crash, and then the only governments which are functions calling an international conference and reorganizing a system which has already collapsed. It could be like that. It could be more peaceful, like eventually at some big conference a proposal is made, and many countries endorse it. I have no idea: It’s very difficult to exactly say how we can win. “But the idea that we have not only a solution, but that that solution can become the dominant solution in history, I’m deeply convinced of it. It’s almost like every time something gets worse, it’s an affirmation that we are getting closer to the solution. If you’re not married to the system, then you think that what is becoming worse, in one sense, somehow affirming what Lyn has been forecasting all of this time, you say, yeah, we’re on the right track. And in a certain sense, it’s only when you marry into income, money, prestige, all of these things, then you don’t see it. And I think one of the reasons why these individuals don’t believe there are solutions possible, because they have one foot in paradise and one foot in hell; and then naturally, you don’t see a solution because you’re torn apart. “And I think it’s really something worth thinking about, because the one powerful weapon is that we can tell people we do have the solution and there exists a solution because otherwise, you would think that Leibniz was wrong about the best of all possible worlds; you would think that the Creator made the universe badly, which I fundamentally don’t think; I think this universe is the most perfect, beautiful, universe, that the Creator is the most loving Creator you can imagine, and the whole existence of creation is an example of the principle of Love. I fully agree with Kepler who said, the more I study the stars the more I come to the conclusion that the Creator must have been the absolute Loving existence in the universe. “I think this emotion of Love, recognizing the beauty of the Creation, can only come from this gigantic principle of agapē. That gives you hope. And if you are attuned to that, you are not afraid, either. So I think we should be absolutely emphatic, that solutions are possible, and that if people don’t see it, then they should investigate what’s wrong with their thinking, and not for one second give credence to such an idea.” As the institutional forces of the trans-Atlantic world lose the mantle of heaven, we will begin to see spontaneous, if disorganized and semi-informed, revolt. The walk-out yesterday by several hundred students in Brooklyn from a high school where they were required to show up and remain, despite known Covid cases among the faculty and fellow students; the request by Black Voters Matter and other Georgia Democratic organizations that Biden and Harris not show up to spew vacuous platitudes about Martin Luther King at his Atlanta memorial; the cowardly but continuous move toward nuclear power by nations asserting its indispensable role in an “energy taxonomy,” despite the conniptions of the “Brown Greens,” indicates in different instances how the mantle of heaven is being lost. Look at the contrast between the 1.4 million cases of Omicron virus in one day in the United States, and the 87 cases in Henan province in China, leading to a full lockdown of the city of Anyan (pop. 5.2 million.) The idea that the nation of China, 1.4 billion people, cannot continue to do the kind of lockdown process, mass testing, and aggressive healthcare that in fact defeats the pandemic, shows only the pessimism of those whose Malthusian health-care outlook, like the outlook of the recently exhumed Obama-era Ezekiel Emmanuel, will soon be shown to be unsustainable. Another contrast: not America or Europe, but Russia, as proposed by its medical officials at the December CIS meeting, has converged upon the public sanitation approach for all nations proposed 18 months ago by the Schiller Institute. This means that two of the world’s major powers are proceeding as the Schiller Institute suggests. Why not the rest? Soon, the populations of all nations will have no choice but to attempt to preserve their lives by adopting the proposals of Dr. Jocelyn Elders, and Helga Zepp-LaRouche. This Saturday, Helga will address international youth on the life, work, and significance of the great Islamic thinker and physician, Ibn Sina, after whom her strategic intervention into Afghanistan, “Operation Ibn Sina,” is named. Monday, on the Martin Luther King holiday, the Schiller Institute will host a gathering entitled “Injustice Anywhere is a Threat to Justice Everywhere: International Seminar to Stop the Murder of Afghanistan.” Meanwhile, to remind everyone of the boorish behavior of the Brutish Empire toward the United States, we present in the Documentation Section Prince Andrew’s (yes, that Prince Andrew) discussion about “The Great Game,” as recorded in October, 2008 by Tatania Gfoeller, the American ambassador to Kyrgyzstan. This sheds light on the ideational and synergist geopolitical context of the recent, failed attempt to overthrow the government of the nation of Kazakhstan. The efficiency of response by the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) to the attempted “Afghansi” disintegration of that nation will not have been lost on the negotiators that met in Geneva. Vladimir Putin’s attempt to engage President Joe Biden in a rational discussion, even amidst continuous provocations to war, may well prove to be the primary reason that we all survive.
|
Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern has insisted that only a metanoia—a 180- degree spiritual “bootlegger’s turn” away from a self-defeating, self-destructive indifference to promoting the General Welfare of people all over the world—can preserve any nation, including the declining United States. In times of pandemic, this should be clear. This could be done, for example, in consultation with the CIS nations addressed last week by Vladimir Putin, by re-directing the world’s military capabilities to the task of saving millions now threatened with death by famine and by infectious, possibly species-threatening diseases. We could ensure a moral upshift in international relations through establishing a world health platform that reverses the medical apartheid of the past two years (and more) and establishes a world “public sanitation” policy as recently discussed by Russian head of the Federal Service for Supervision of Consumer Rights Protection and Human Welfare, effectively Chief Sanitary Physician, Anna Popova, and as continually discussed by Dr. Jocelyn Elders and Helga Zepp-LaRouche. The stakes are higher than at any time in human history.Now that spokesmen from Russia and China have described their respective roles in securing the recent P-5 re-statement of the 1986 “Reagan/Gorbachev Resolution” that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought (see slugs), what can be done to cause the United States and the trans-Atlantic world to honor that premise? We know, that refuting the presently publicly stated”confront Russia" outlook on Ukraine, as espoused by the Atlantic Council and others, requires an affirmative response to the Russian proposal that the decades-earlier broken promises of NATO and the United States, concerning “no NATO expansion eastward,” now be guaranteed in writing. Given the undeniable record of the United States and Europe in not only breaking their strategic promises, but also “restructuring”—i.e. looting and depopulating—Russia for several years in the 1990s through predatory financial “shock therapy,” that doesn’t seem a lot to ask. We can be sure that the true gravity of the present circumstance has been registered in several, even many, national capitals. It may even begin to episodically puncture the media curtain now drawn around the truth; but if so, that will largely be our own doing, in collaboration with institutions that aid that effort. At home, however, the “Prompt Global Strike” and related “Beyond MAD” digital knuckledraggers of the “Silicon(e) Valley Department of Defense” have, at best, an outdated, post-imperial, Bertrand Russell-like view of “how to handle Russia and China.” In this era of political correctness, they wouldn’t dare say it this way, but in a 1952 interview, on or about his 80th birthday, which can be viewed on YouTube, Bertrand Russel opined," It’s very difficult for anybody born since 1914, to realize how profoundly different the world is now from what it was when I was a child…. A world where ancient empires vanish like morning mist… We have to accustom ourselves to Asiatic-self assertion…It is an extraordinarily difficult thing for an old man to live in such a world." Answering the question as to what part “Asia” would play in the near future, Russell said, “Well, Asia… is not prepared any longer to be subservient to the white man. It hasn’t noticed that Russians are white. If it had, it would take a different line. But it seems to think that Russians are yellow, or black, or some other color. And I think our propaganda ought to be mainly devoted only to saying, Russians also are white. I believe that would be the effective propaganda to use in Asia… if Asia does not overwhelm the rest of the world with a vast flood of population and poverty, Asia must live up to its responsibilities. It must learn the sort of things that we have learned in the West, which is how to maintain a roughly stationary [level] of population…” The Malthusian premise luridly on display then, wears the modest garb of “climate change” today, but it still has Bertrand Russell’s face. Hence, the surprise, panic, and shock now being expressed among “policy-making circles” that have awakened to realize that the China-Russia alliance is real. Yet, out of their depraved indifference to American history, Illiterates are referring to this as “the greatest challenge ever to American power.” They would be horrified to realize that it is precisely this China-Russia alliance, together with the United States, that Abraham Lincoln, Czar Alexander I, Dimitri Medelyev, Ansom Burlingame, Wharton Barker, and the Self-Strengthening Movement of China worked to create in the Nineteenth Century, expressed in the Trans-Continental, Trans-Siberian, and Sun Yat-Sen China national railway designs. It is neither “communist,” nor “capitalist.” It is the transformed physical economy, first called the American System, later transferred to Europe and the world by the German-American economist Friedrich List, and then recently completely revolutionized by Lyndon LaRouche and his discoveries, that is, as of now, more studied, appreciated, and understood in Russia, China, and some other countries than in the United States itself. LaRouche is the only American statesman in the last half-century to offer an advanced conception of American strategic policy, one diametrically opposed to British Liberal-Imperialist Bertrand Russell and his intellectual tradition. Perhaps, in this year of LaRouche’s centenary, several nations and institutions will see fit to discuss this “best kept secret.” LaRouche proceeded in his strategic policy designs from the vantage point of physical economy, as invented by the 26-year-old genius Gottfried Leibniz in his essay “Society and Economy.” Through a series of books and lectures, as well as through his eight United States Presidential campaigns, LaRouche insisted that strategy, as well as political action, must proceed from a philosophical method of a particular type. LaRouche identified that method with the person of Socrates, and the politically-suppressed writings of Socrates’ student Plato and Plato’s School of Athens. In his introduction to the LaRouche organization’s polemically authentic translation of Plato’s Timaeus dialogue, “Plato and the New Political Science,” LaRouche wrote: “Contrary to the myth of Plato the merely contemplative speculator, Plato was the leader of the most active and far-flung political intelligence operations organization of the city-builders faction of the fourth century BC…. Platonic ideas, properly so termed, take as their subject the characteristic features of the mental processes by which hypotheses concerning empirical scientific knowledge are formed. It is therefore such Platonic ideas which rightly appear very modern to informed readers today…. It is only by methods of composition which force the reader’s attention away from primary emphasis on prosaic facts of the ephemeral here and now that the reader’s attention is directed to the relatively transfinite, subsuming successive transformations of knowledge in the ephemeral here and now. We, today, must pursue the same method if we are to arrive, at last, at abstraction of sets of principles which account for the ordered course of the history of civilization in the past, and into the future. “Here is the practical importance of historiography to every citizen, whether a public official or an individual man or woman lacking any conspicuous status in public affairs. What we do—or fail to do—in the present, in our here and now, determines how we and others shall live in our own personal future and in the future of our posterity.” Bertrand Russell’s view of Plato was… somewhat different. “For a time I found a certain satisfaction in the Platonic eternal world of ideas, which has a sort of religious flavor. It gave me a certain satisfaction. But then I came to the conclusion that that was nonsense. And then I was left without any satisfaction with it… And remain so….” This “higher manifold” of intelligence warfare is the real domain of the ongoing strategic discussions of today. The disadvantage for Americans is that Bertrand Russell’s “liberal imperialist” outlook is more popular in the State Department and other institutions than is that of Lyndon LaRouche. As a consequence, until the seminal role of Lyndon LaRouche is at least acknowledged in terms of his role in the strategic dialogue with Russia and China over the past 40 years, even on matters of basic historiography, let alone grand strategy, America is doomed, when it comes to matters of grand strategy, to repeat the same self-defeating mistakes over and over, starting with the axiom that “Great Britain/Iago is America’s/Othello’s closest ally.” It is our job to induce a metanoia, a moral “bootlegger’s turn,” including through the evolving pandemic, and the crime against humanity unfolding in Afghanistan, to give the trans-Atlantic world back the moral fitness to survive.
|
As we rapidly approach “the moment of truth” in the tense dialogue concerning the future of humanity involving the Presidents of the United States, Russia and China, consider the chilling remarks to TASS by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, spoken with respect to the Russian proposals regarding the securing of written guarantees against further NATO expansion eastward: “I said that we would find forms to respond, including by military and military-technical means [if NATO ignores Moscow’s concerns again]. I reaffirm this.” Consider, also, the briefing given by Defense Secretary Sergei Shoigu to Vladimir Putin documenting the intention of American private military companies (PMCs) to carry out a staged provocation in eastern Ukraine using chemical weapons. Finally, note that Vladimir Putin was President of Russia at the time of the attack of September 11, 2001, and was the first head of state to speak with President George W.Bush, telling Bush that he had directed the Russian nuclear forces to “stand down” in a situation that appeared to potentially involve even a possible illegal takeover of the U.S. Presidency.Where is the sane leadership response in the United States? Competent interlocutors, speaking on behalf of the once-cogent, but now no longer trustworthy trans-Atlantic world, have to now emerge from the “dark wood” of post-9/11 neo-con/neo-liberal war diplomacy. The British-instigated “American homeland defense strategies” that have resulted in the past two decades of unprovoked conflicts and destabilizations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and many other locations, punctuated by the wanton killing of civilians in pursuit of dubious “geopolitical” ends, must stop. Take the unlawful, Victoria Nuland-managed “F..k the EU” Feb. 21-22 2014 coup in Ukraine. There, 100 casualties in the Maidan were the apparent prescribed “threshold level” for a public, full-throated endorsement of the Ukrainian “independence forces” by the United States and NATO, according to Professor Ivan Katchanovski, School of Political Studies at the University of Ottawa. He investigated the Maidan Massacre for four-and-a-half years, and was interviewed in Oliver Stone’s 2019 Revealing Ukraine. "There were two interviews published in a recent book by a Ukrainian pro-Maidan journalist. And in this book they produced interviews of two far-right leaders of Ukraine…. And they and Maidan leaders met with some senior western officials. And this western official told them, basically, that killings of a few protesters is not enough for western governments to change support. “They said specifically, [the] end of recognition of the Yanukovych government basically would change only if the number of the victims would be 100. The western government policy changed immediately after the Maidan massacre. Not an accident, because you have exactly 100 people who were killed.” (The total list of those killed now totals 130.) Stone’s two documentaries, the other being Ukraine On Fire, contain extensive interviews with Putin, and several scenes of Biden in Ukraine, including Biden speaking before the post-coup Ukrainian parliament in 2015. How does this inform the demands of Russia for written guarantees from the United States today? Today, death, be it through pandemic, famine, flood, or war, including potential thermonuclear war, seems to be all around us. No efficient solution from institutions of government in the trans-Atlantic sector seems forthcoming. Yet the solution to this lower-order “entropy of doom” has been advanced in the form of the persistent call for a P-5 summit (Russia, China, the United States, France, and Great Britain), in the method called the “Committee for the Coincidence of Opposites,” and in the economic and strategic outlook contained in the World Land-Bridge and “Operation Ibn Sina.” Regarding the latter, a greater familiarity with the thinking of the great Islamic physician and thinker is essential to apprehend why his name is not attached to Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s Afghanistan policy-initiative as a mere symbol. Here, we quote from section 36 of Ibn Sina’s Metaphysics to illustrate how, for example, the recent U.S. Congressional call for the unfreezing of Afghanistan’s assets, to be deployed by the national bank of that nation, in the name of the principle of justice, equity, and sovereignty, can be morally upshifted to ensure that it actually succeeds in that objective in the short term: THE ONTOLOGY OF HUMAN DIPLOMACY “Benevolence and usefulness come from one thing to another by means of transaction or by generosity. A transaction takes place in an exchange where something is given and something is received. What is received is not always concrete since it can be a good name, joy, or a prayer, or gratitude. Though the object of a transaction is called and recognized by the vulgar as merchandise which is exchanged with another merchandise, a good name or gratitude are not considered exchangeable in a transaction…. Generosity is that which is not the result of an exchange, of recompense, or of a transaction. From the will which directs generosity a good thing results, while no ulterior intention is associated with it. Since the Necessary Existent acts in this manner, Its act is characterized by absolute generosity.”—Ibn Sina, Metaphysics, Section 36 How can Ibn Sina’s philosophical outlook regarding generosity be applied, in this present moment, in Afghanistan? Linda Everett, a decades-long organizer for the Schiller Institute who played a central, most notable role in the creation of the Institute’s Club of Life (an organization created to counter the depopulation schemes of Aurelio Peccei and NATO’s Alexander King’s organization, the Club of Rome,) addressed this same matter in a recent strategy session of organizers, addressed by Helga Zepp-LaRouche. In response to Helga, Linda began by referencing the Schiller Institute’s December 18 Sunday Christmas concert, performing works by composers Antonio Vivaldi and Johan Sebastian Bach, and traditional Christmas music. “Why was the concert that we just gave so important? Because it went right to the soul of people. Some of us have lost loved ones in these last three weeks…. But for the people that we will be organizing in these several days before the holiday, when they also have losses such as this, it cannot be something that holds them back. In other words, they have lost part of their hearts. But as you have often said, we must adopt the world…. We must ask people to open, don’t feel so, as though a part of the heart has been taken. No, the heart is like the earth…. It expands to hold the necessities, the needs, of its children. Of the women, the children, the huge part of Afghanistan, and the rest of the starving that will die. The heart has to open up to that. It is as a dove, as a swan, as a crane that would open its wings to hold all of these needs within those that we are organizing. It is the fact that they have lost someone, as some of us have in these last few weeks—you can just be sure that that is out there among the people that we are organizing. It should not be something where they feel that they have no ability to celebrate, whether it is Christmas or whatever the holiday…. They are capable of doing it. Perhaps they have never had to, but they are capable. And we are the ones that have to ask…. We are able to expand our hearts, and open them to these people and move. The worst would be to say, No, I’m hurting, I can’t do it. No. The way to get beyond hurt, is to give, and that is what we need at this moment, when millions are dying.The heart has to open up to that….” It is that generosity, not only as a sentiment, but as a weapon against despair, that was the content of “the benefit of the other” policy of the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia. It is what informed General George Washington’s unique doctrine of treatment of captured Hessian and British soldiers in the American Revolution. It is the method of a truly human diplomacy, exercised especially in times of war. Lyndon LaRouche famously stated that “the content of policy is the method by which it is made.” While the State Department will obscure and dissemble, it cannot deny that to not act, now, in the Afghanistan crisis, is to condemn, unnecessarily, tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, to death in the next weeks—not only in Afghanistan, but in other areas threatened by famine and disease. Is this being done in the name of “protecting the democratic rights of the people” we have condemned to death? The content of that policy toward Afghanistan, the present policy, is depraved indifference, the same indifference reported in the killing of more than 1,500 “civilian casualties” through “precision drone warfare,” and the withholding of medical assistance to the continent of Africa for the past 18 months in order to “make sure Americans [and Europeans] are safe first.” Reversing that depraved indifference is the most efficient way to signal to Russia and the world that those that broke their word, in pledging that “NATO would not expand one inch eastward” in 1990, have now shown a willingness, if not to reverse, to at least amend their behavior, in order to move away, at nearly the last moment, from what must otherwise be deemed a self-doomed debt-driven drive toward total, unwinnable war.
|
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.
|
Even at a distance of 200 years—he passed away in 1828—the immortal painter Francisco Goya still likes to comment, as the occasion demands, on “current events” that, no matter how “contemporary” or “cyber” they may appear to be, still reflect the time-worn folly of brinkmanship, of war, and of “strategies of tension” that can lead to war. This folly appears to arise from an almost-genetic stupidity on the part of a financial oligarchy that is so ideologically inbred, that it is constitutionally incapable of learning anything from its mistakes. On such a full sea of folly is the world now afloat, in the mounting tensions seen instigated by the “Queen’s Navy,” the United States/NATO “ship of fools”, with Russia and China, and the allies of the Belt and Road Initiative.Ever hear of the idea of “threat inflation?” For example, accusing the Russians of plotting to invade Ukraine, based on the same reliable “yellowcake” intelligence method used for the 2003 Iraq War, and for “Russiagate,”—and then, if/when they don’t invade, claiming “a strategic-military victory for the forces of democracy?” Francisco Goya knew all about this flim-flam 200 years ago. He illustrates the “threat inflation” fraud in his engraving “disparate conocido”—, “well-known folly.” A crowd cowers before two figures, one of whom brandishes a saber and appears to be shouting. The other, behind him, may actually only be a scarecrow, made up to look human, which the “soldier” seems to be defending. One lone figure in the cowering crowd, who stands out, has one hand on his ass, (which is prominently turned toward the face of the threatening soldier,) and one on his mouth. He isn’t fooled by the fraud, so he says to the threatening soldier-figure, in a graphic language that all viewers can understand, “Kiss my ass.” And that we hope, reader, will also be your response to this current “threat inflation.” We urge you to ask, “What’s really going on?” It is to that, that our publications, our analysis, and our strategic initiatives, such as “Operation Ibn Sina” are directed. Though at this hour we have yet to receive an official Russian response, it can be safely said that, short of a face-to-face summit, as described by Vladimir Putin’s “P5” proposal, and additional face-to-face talks between Biden and Putin, and/or Biden and Xi Jinping, nothing more than a tense pre-war truce, at best, will prevail in the world. That is not enough to ensure that the world does not go to thermonuclear war, either intentionally, or accidentally. The American response, as expressed in the words of National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, who spoke for 40 minutes after the Biden-Putin call, and then took questions, was (in approximation) that Biden told Putin that there is “another option” to confrontation: de-escalation and diplomacy. We were able to do this at the height of the Cold War, creating stability mechanisms to help increase transparency. This was done in the post-Cold War period through the Russia-NATO Council and the OSCE, and there’s no reason that cannot be done now. Biden also said that the U.S. is prepared to advance the Minsk accords in support of the Normandy format. But, according to Sullivan, Ukraine was “the main topic of discussion.” Biden let Putin know that if Russia’ “further invades” Ukraine, that “strong economic measures” would be the response of the United States and the NATO countries of Europe, along with additional defense materiel sent to Ukraine, and “fortification of NATO allies on the eastern flank.” Seventeen countries have joined NATO since the verbal pledges were given by Secretary of State James Baker to Gorbachov on February 9,1990, that NATO would move “not one inch eastward.” (Baker used that formulation a full three times during that post-Berlin Wall meeting, saying, according to archival documents, that “not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.” Former CIA Director Robert Gates, speaking in 2000, criticized the 1990s “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”) President Putin has for some time requested written guarantees that NATO will cease to expand its presence eastward, to the very borders of Russia. He raised this matter in the two-hour discussion with Biden. Apparently that has been rejected outright by the United States. The United States is also saying that it will not respect the Russian notion of “red lines.” Really? Filmmaker Oliver Stone, in an interview conducted yesterday, pointed out that “in 1962, when the Missile Crisis came, the generals were very clear: bomb the shit out of them (Soviets.) . We’re going in there. [Gen. Curtis] LeMay wanted to go in. This was an excuse for them to go in, because the Russians had put missiles in Cuba. Kennedy … refused to go to war. It came very close. We owe perhaps our lives to his judiciousness in this case, because it was very close. And it was really Robert, Jack, and the Soviet ambassador, and Khruschev who solved this issue at the last second.” From 1974 until today, forces associated with Lyndon LaRouche have suffered the slings and arrows of outrageous stupidity from those unable to understand how close—as a result of decades of population-destroying, genocidal economic policies conducted against the world’s poor by the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and, now, the likes of the Davos World Economic Forum and the “Guardians for Inclusive Capitalism” (in the form of the Great Reset)— we have often come to thermonuclear war. We have conducted many mobilizations to prevent that occurrence. Too many people apparently believe that such a war is unthinkable, and would therefore never occur. But thermonuclear war is only unthinkable for those that have trouble thinking. The danger is also impossible to resolve without a viable global alternative. In this time of the pandemic, when potentially species-threatening diseases make everyone on the planet potentially vulnerable, the folly of the past five decades of IMF/World Bank policy is luridly obvious. A world health platform, accompanied by 1.5 billion jobs in the water, sanitation, transportation, energy, construction, medical, agricultural, and educational sectors—an effort that must accompany the vaccines and medicines that are, in the short term, the necessary measures for any viable crash effort—will be led by the nations with the physical-economic capabilities to do so. China, the United States, and Russia will find the solution to “threat inflation” by facing the real threat, which is not each other but the limitations of our imagination that must be overcome to solve the present and looming challenges facing humanity as a whole at the frontier of medical, biological, and physical science. The figure of Ibn Sina is the “patron saint” of that challenge, and Operation Ibn Sina is a higher-order strategy, generated from the world of the unthinkable, for the “axiomatically challenged.” Perfidious Albion is “hereditarily incapable” of playing that positive role, and that is the elegant, nonviolent solution to the pestilence of oligarchy.
|
Four committees have been proposed by Helga Zepp-LaRouche as the springboard for a campaign of action for the advancement of proposals arrived at over the two-day Schiller Institute Conference of November 13th and 14th, “All Moral Resources of Humanity Must Be Called Up: Mankind Must Be The Immortal Species!” Those policies included: a “higher resolution” of the Afghanistan crisis, both the immediate danger of famine, and the longer-term integration of Afghanistan into a functioning “world land-bridge.” The initiative was named by Zepp-LaRouche “Operation Ibn Sina”; a “no limits to growth” science policy, expanding nuclear and thermonuclear energy production, consumption, research and development worldwide; a resurgence of classical education and culture through a modern “Convivencia” of Eastern and Western pedagogical methods, in the image of Leibniz’s proposal to establish an international string of collaborative academies; and a world collaboration to not only eradicate the danger of the coronavirus, but also to establish an international health platform, including clean water supplies and healthy food, and to extend the scientific boundaries of present-day biology, chemistry and physics in order to supply medicine with the necessary conceptual breakthroughs for the new requirements for diagnosis and treatment of disease so sorely revealed to be necessary in the wake of this still-evolving pandemic.These committees represent evolving, dynamic investigative processes, embedded in a rapidly shifting manifold of discontinuous but knowable change. For five decades, economist, statesman and thinker Lyndon LaRouche approached current history by applying a method of thinking, an epistemology, to the “hyper-geometry” of evolving political processes. In an April 1976 article entitled “Heuristic Application of the Higher Theory of Manifolds to the Current Strategical and Subsumed Tactical Situation,” Lyndon LaRouche sought to describe to his associates why “If one proposed to force existing governments to directly implement [a certain policy], the task must seem formally an impossibility. Yet, if the possibility for a rapid succession of intermediating developments is clearly understood, no such difficulty as initially appears to prevail stands in our way.” He said: “In any relatively short interval of development of a phase of society of a definite kind, a characteristic specific feature of that society, adducible from its mode of development, defines the approximate equivalent of a set of universal laws specific to that phase of that society. Consequently, in the experience of persons within that society, certain forms of activity as characterized by such rules, represent the effective measure of reality within that context. Consequently, certain features of life, so determined, have the significance of ‘fact’ under such conditions…. We might therefore properly term such ‘facts’ to be ‘practical facts,’ since their conditional validity is inseparable from the effectiveness of the kinds of actions they imply; they are called ‘facts’ essentially because the reactions they imply ‘seem to work’ within the framework of that phase of that particular society’s development. “Then, however, bring that society to a point of discontinuity, such as the present…. The society has reached the point at which it can no longer exist on the basis of the previously dominant sets of institutions. As a result, what worked as reactions to events in the past, no longer works. In a very meaningful sense, the laws of the universe have suddenly broken down insofar as relations within that society approximate a set of implied universal laws of social practice. Consequently, what was effectively a ‘fact’ in 1971 [now 50 years ago—ed.] is no longer a fact today.” At that point, the laws governing reality must change. Inversely, in LaRouche’s Dec. 19, 2004 essay, “The Dialogue of Eurasian Civilizations: Earth’s Next 50 Years,” LaRouche efficiently forecasted the next 50 years in front of mankind, 16 of which have now occurred. “Earth’s Next 50 Years” was, however, no mere “futurology.” It was a call to action, and “a call to (intellectual) arms.” The recently concluded two-day conference of the Schiller Institute, was a process within a process conceived in the image of that LaRouche-proposed 2005 strategy for global transition. The initiatives from the conference, including the creation of the four committees intended to act upon the crisis presented in the four panels at the conference, are embedded in a war for the soul of civilization. At COP26, the oligarchical despots that dared to declare that $130 trillion could be amassed from private capital in order to resolve a problem that did not exist—namely, the emission of CO₂ into the atmosphere—instead created an opening, a flank, which we must now exploit. By revealing that, were the will to do so present, trillions of dollars could be deployed for the purpose of eradicating poverty, famine, disease, and therefore, war itself, the international financial oligarchy made eloquently clear, to all those not so intimidated as to be unable to see it, their Malthusian, monstrous reality barely hidden behind the mask called “climate change.” The British expressed their displeasure at Joe Biden’s being unable to deliver what they desired for COP26, by allowing the Guardian to run a lengthy article about his apparent flatulence in the face of members of the royal family. How happy are they now, at the results of the 3-1/2 hour video conversation between Biden and Xi Jinping of China? Though the saber-rattling continues from the Pentagon and State Department, the two leaders have discussed matters, and Biden has insisted that he does not support, and that America does not support the idea of Taiwan’s independence. “One China” remains the official American policy. But the battle for a sane U.S.-China relationship is still inconclusive; a higher-manifold resolution must be supplied. The international political battlefield is fraught with danger, as can be seen in the back-and-forth border dispute between Poland and Belarus. Angela Merkel’s 50-minute phone call to Lukashenko has infuriated the Greens and other anti-Russian German and EU elements. Discussions involving France’s Emmanuel Macron and Russia’s Vladimir Putin have also sought to de-escalate the situation in Central Europe. Meanwhile, Ukraine was allowed to join EU efforts to help postpone the certification of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline by at least 6 months. The immediate consequence of this will be punitive inflation of gas prices—punitive to the citizens of Europe, as Russian representatives have pointed out. Nonetheless, why does, and will, every strategy advanced to destroy Russia and China, militarily or otherwise, only serve to significantly materially and politically destroy the Anglo-American “(shrinking) sphere of influence?” Why, in fact, must the failed but still-prevalent axioms of the international monetarist system, which died but was never buried in 2007-2008, ultimately destroy that very system itself, no matter what policy is now adopted in the short term? The reason is that the reality by which that system seemed to be governed, actually never existed; it was embedded in another, higher “manifold.” That is the manifold of physical economy which LaRouche illustrated through his “Triple Curve” heuristic graphic 25 years ago, depicting the insoluble, “explosive” contradiction between looting the physical economy and inflating the fictitious speculative monetarist bubble. There will be no admission by the “guardians of the establishment,” probably ever, that they have no idea what is actually going on. ECB President Christine Lagarde, for example, does not say that she was mistaken on how long inflation, that is, hyperinflation, will presently continue in the trans-Atlantic system. She simply says “it will last longer than we expected”—sort of like the coronavirus, now raging in Germany, Austria, and throughout Europe, as well as in Russia. Medical personnel in Austria have just warned that “war triage” could even emerge, if a completely new approach is not taken to confronting the truth of the character of the coronavirus pandemic, and to adopting the necessary public health measures and expenditures worldwide. Victory will also require breakthroughs in the sciences of biology, medicine, chemistry and physics, for which the inspiring figures of Louis Pasteur, Marie Curie and Ibn Sina, one of the greatest physicians in all human history, will serve as metaphors for the method of scientific higher hypothesis itself. “Hypothesis non fingo—”I don’t make hypotheses“—is the motto, known or unknown, conscious or instinctive, that dooms the leadership of the present time in the trans-Atlantic world. The”laws " and “facts” by means of which they have governed, no longer work. But, like the once-famous Wile E Coyote of cartoon fame, who keeps running off the side of a cliff without noting that he has actually left solid ground, the doomed, left to their own devices, only confront reality when it smacks them in the face. It is possible, however, as well as necessary, that the Schiller Institute’s commitment to the dignity of humanity, expressed through the anti-Malthusian resistance it has helped to spark as seen at Flop26, becomes the new hypothesis for action adopted by more and more people dedicated to make this higher, better world, not merely an intention, but a fact.
|
As the COP 26 “strange beast, its hour come at last, slouches toward Glasgow,” the news has suddenly arrived: “The Queen will not attend the climate change summit.” Will Prince Andrew, out of a sense of imperial duty to the Crown and empire, emerge from hiding and, in the spirit of the season, go to Glascow dressed as his mother? Though the Queen has now cancelled going to the Glasgow ghoul-fest, the business of depopulation must proceed. So perhaps Andrew will oblige, impersonating “Psycho’s” Norman Bates (and Norman’s mother,) inadvertently bringing an unwelcome guest, psychological truth, to the doomed Glasgow masquerade.In the real world, Afghanistan stands “at the precipice” of destruction by famine at the hands of a vindictive sanctions “victors policy.” A Haitian publication, Haiti Libre, runs the headline: “Deprived of Fuel by Gangs—The Country at the Gates of Hell.” Uganda’s 35-year president, Yoweri Museveni(!) in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, says: “Africa can’t sacrifice its future prosperity for Western climate goals. The continent should balance its energy mix, not rush straight toward renewables—even though that will likely frustrate some of those gathering at next week’s global climate conference in Glasgow.” But Swedish eco-freaks know far better than Ugandans, or nuclear power-advocating Bolivians, that the real enemy is technological progress, and that “technological progress is racism.” Technological progress is what the notorious Bertrand Russell so delicately referred to, in his 1924 book Icarus, as “white science.” “White Skin, Black Fuel, on the Danger of Fossil Fascism,” a May 2021 book compiled by the “Zetkin Collective” featuring Andreas Malm, professor of ecology at Lund University, is a triple-retread apology for terrorism “to save the planet from technology.” Malm/“White Skin, Black Fuel,” is an “Eminem,” white rapper-style knock-off of Franz Fanon and his 1961 book “Black Skin, White Masks.” Malm writes: “The role of the radical activist fringe is to instill in those who do not want to engage in active activism the courage to take to the streets and make their voices heard. To apply the lesson of Black Lives Matter to the climate movement is to seek modes of action that are equivalent to destroying the police station in Minneapolis or toppling statues. I’m not advocating violence against people, but I do think that property destruction has played a role in virtually every social movement that has achieved its goal.” This is a crude, less literate restatement of the argument in the opening chapter “Concerning Violence” of Fanon’s 1961 The Wretched of the Earth, itself an updated restatement of Georges Sorel’s 1908 Reflections On Violence. This is luddism in the cyber age, like “Unabomber,” but complete with the cyber-Dionysian world of addictive video-games and their participants. This can all be monitored in real time through, for example, Amazon’s recently-announced special Cloud arrangement with GCHQ, MI5, and MI6, a form of human data-mining for future deployment purposes. The new, social-media-driven environmental politics, with its self-appointed “guardians of the Earth,” will feel justified to take any recourse and use any means necessary, including violence. They will be personally anointed with the “responsibility to protect the earth,” augmented through drug use, along the lines of the old Eleusinian “mystery cults” of Greece. This Dionysian eco-horde, defining the destruction of civilization, and ultimately, humanity, as “a necessary sacrifice for the survival of the planet,” is to, through self-destruction, bring about the New Age, the “transvaluation of all values.” This “Great Game” is to be fought in “the Empire of the Mind,” or so the rather limited imaginations of the decadent elites of the delusional trans-Atlantic world prefer to believe. Both China and Russia display significant strategic restraint. The entries below document this. China, while quite explicit about the flaws in the Afghanistan political process, has insisted that nations must work with the Taliban authorities in aiding the transition to a more advanced form of government, or be held accountable for a willful genocide against that population over the next months. Russia, through slowly advancing talks with the United States on advanced strategic and tactical weapons systems; with Ukraine on natural gas and oil; and with a firm rebuke of the dangerously provocative statements of the outgoing German defense minister and others in NATO, keeps sanity “on the table.” The Indo-Pacific “Orcus” naval adventure, actually a pathetic revisioning of the British imperial “East of Suez” outlook abandoned in 1968, is already underwater, in a different way than it intended. Secretary of State Tony Blinken, in attempting to “bring Taiwan into the UN,” appears to believe, in defiance of the physical reality of the Covid pandemic, trans-Atlantic industrial and manufacturing collapse, and hyperinflation, and the counterposed physical economic achievements of China and its Belt and Road initiative, that he—or anyone—can turn back the clock to the “bad old days” prior to 1972, when the United States refused to recognize “Red China.” “Just as the spatial expanse and anti-entropic evolution of the universe are infinite, so is the intellectual and moral perfectibility of the human mind. Therefore, every additional human being is a new source for further development of the universe and for the solution of problems on Earth, such as overcoming poverty, disease, underdevelopment, and violence.” This is the efficient antidote to the Malthusian outlook of Malm, Blinken, and the British royals. “Taking care of each other is key in this ongoing development. It is the combination of creativity and empathy that transcends mere day-to-day exigencies. Scientific and technological progress has a positive effect in that, when applied to the production process, it increases the productivity of the labor force and of industrial and agricultural capacities, which in turn leads to rising living standards and a longer life expectancy for more and more people.” These conceptions, contained in The Schiller Institute/Clintel Wake Up Call" are the manifesto of an Anti-Malthusian Resistance statement, manifest in the Schiller Institute’s Committee for the Coincidence of Opposites, that has significantly advanced through various actions in the past days. Most of all, this includes the Keynote given this past Saturday, “The Coming Fall of the House of Gaia,” as part of the educational process for youth of the past weekend led by its founder, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, which should be studied by all, before the Halloween Summit.
|
Those familiar with the fifty-plus-year forecasting practice and record of economist and statesman Lyndon LaRouche will perhaps recognize the deeper significance of the following statement, a significance probably unknown to the writer himself. In a London Guardian October 1 op-ed entitled “America faces supply-chain disruption and shortages. Here’s why,” author Matt Stoller says: “… what we’re experiencing is also the net result of decades of policy choices starting in the 1970s that emphasized consumer sovereignty over citizenship. The consolidation of power into the hands of private equity financiers and monopolists over the last four decades has left us uniquely unprepared to manage a supply shock. Our hyper-efficient globalized supply chain, once romanticized by men like Tom Friedman in The World Is Flat, is the problem. Like the financial system before the 2008 crash, this kind of economic order hides its fragility. It seems to work quite well, until it doesn’t.”It is not enough to point out that what seems to be a sudden seizing up of the trans-Atlantic goods-distribution system is not the product of the Covid pandemic of the past 20 months, but something more “long-range.” History is never “objective” in that way. What was the agency that was at work here? Thirty-five years ago today, an “event” occurred that, if omitted from current history, renders it impossible to fully understand what is happening now. THE PRICE FOR CHANGING HISTORY Lyndon LaRouche, in 2004, in a report titled “The Night They Came to Kill Me” explained the true, “subjective” nature of that “objective” trans-Atlantic-wide economic devolution. "On October 6, 1986, a virtual army of more than four hundred armed personnel descended upon the town of Leesburg, Virginia, for a raid on the offices of EIR and its associates, and also deployed for another, darker mission. The premises at which I was residing at that time were surrounded by an armed force, while aircraft, armored vehicles, and other personnel waited for the order to move in shooting. Fortunately, the killing did not happen, because someone with higher authority than the Justice Department Criminal Division head William Weld, ordered the attack on me called off. The forces readied to move in on me, my wife, and a number of my associates, were pulled back in the morning…… “The 1973 campaign for my ‘elimination,’ the near-slaughter of Oct. 6-7, 1986, and the stubborn effort to exclude me from the debates now (in 2004), are each and all products of the same issue of my fight against the effort of certain liberal economists, and others, to put the world as a whole under the thumb of the policies of former Nazi Economics Minister Hjalmar Schacht. “The ultimate origin of these and related actions is not the U.S. Department of Justice, but a much higher authority than the U.S. government, the same assortment of Venetian-style international financier-oligarchical interests, and their associated law firms, which unleashed the wave of fascist dictatorships in continental Europe over the interval 1922-1945. The common feature of those international financier interests, then, back during 1922-1945, and today, is their present commitment to imposing Schachtian economics upon both the U.S.A. itself, and also on the world at large… “The shift of the U.S. and British economies away from the U.S. ‘s leading role as the world’s greatest producer nation, toward a pro-Schachtian, ’post- industrial’ utopianism, was the hall- mark of the 1966-1968 Nixon campaign for the Presidency. The follies of this ‘post-industrial’ shift into wild-eyed monetarism, led the U.S. government to the point, that it must abandon its foolish post-Kennedy economic and cultural policies, or make exactly the choice I had warned that I feared they would make. Nixon’s decision of August 15, 1971 made the march in the direction of ruin and fascist-like dictatorship inevitable.” Today, as in 1986 and 2004, there are two systems of choice before the world. There is the system of “Reesian choices,” named after the Tavistock Institute’s John Rawlings Rees, typified by the “development policies”—policies of financial looting—of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) toward the continent of Africa ever since the period after JFK’s assassination. Then there is the “American System” of “Hamiltonian” choices, of what has recently been called “win-win cooperation” by the nation of China. For example, when China’s Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Geng Shuang, recently told that body that the international community should “spare no effort in humanitarian assistance and post-disaster reconstruction” toward Haiti, he opened a “strategic flank in the mind,” that is a far more powerful idea than that of the self-doomed “Operation Orcus/Global Britain” military adventure hurtling to its strategic doom in the trans-Pacific theater. COMPLETING HAMILTON’S UNFINISHED “HAITI MISSION” The United States used to think that way. In 1861, the United States, under Abraham Lincoln, dispatched Ambassador Anson Burlingame as diplomatic emissary to a China then subjugated by the British Empire through the Second Opium War. Today, in 2021, China attempts to reach a United States whose leadership and institutional structure, as well as cultural institutions, have now also been subjugated, and largely devastated by the same “Opium War” method—though this time, not external force, but seduction through Winston Churchill’s “Empire of the Mind” was used. The United States was induced, through the Tavistock Institute and its Frankfurt School subsidiary, to destroy itself, to de-industrialize itself, to reject scientific progress itself, and, now, to depopulate itself. The just-announced proposal, however, for a joint, international mission to defend the sovereignty of the nation of Haiti from the international drug mafias that now subjugate it, by demonstrating, through construction of ports, rail, and power, including nuclear and thermonuclear power, that “economic development is a human right,” if accepted, can bring the United States itself back to its senses. The LaRouche proposal for the emergency reconstruction of Haiti, introducing the higher-order concept of development corridors and an " economic platform" into one of the poorest areas of the world, provides, as with Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s Afghanistan proposal, and especially if successfully advocated by a group of Americans representing the Committee for the Coincidence of Opposites, including those that hail from Haiti, a way for America to return to its previous Hamilton/Lincoln/Roosevelt outlook, that Frederick Douglass, America’s ambassador to Haiti, represented in his living person. The uncorrected flaw in the American Revolution was, as all know, the inability to resolve the Africa chattel slavery matter at the beginning of the creaton of the nation, largely because of the influence of John Locke and his Royal Africa Company on the constitution of South Carolina, and other Southern states. But slavery was not the desired system, originally, even in the Southern colonies. Auguste Levasseur, Secretary to Lafayette, recounted in 1824: “In about the year 1680, the General Assembly of the State of Virginia requested of the parent state that it finally put an end to this commerce in human flesh, infamous and unnecessary in the future, since now the population was numerous enough and active enough to cultivate a land that required only the lightest work to reward the tiller richly. Other Colonies repeated this cry of justice and philanthropy, but the parent country was callous and responded only by this atrocious resolution of Parliament: The importation of Slaves in America is too lucrative for the Colonies to be able to insist that England renounce it forever. This response was accompanied by threats to which it was necessary to succumb since they were in no condition to resist them. Nonetheless, the General Assembly renewed several times its demand….” Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton’s support for the Haitian Revolution, and his co-authorship of Haiti’s Constitution, flowed from his notion of “Artificial labor” as expressed in his 1790 Report on the Subject of Manufactures. Is Thomas Jefferson’s then-opposition to Haiti’s self-government consistent with the now-present United States policy, itself opposite to that of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, of allowing, tolerating, and in effect aiding in the never-ending torture of that population, through refusing to take down the “Dope Inc.” financial oligarchy that dominates it as surely as did the slave-masters of 1791? China, which has, since the Bandung conference of 1955, and now even despite the fact that it is not diplomatically recognized by the government of Haiti, insisted that economic development is a human right for that nation. It has now posed to the entire international community that the same problem China has successfully tackled and solved internally—the eradication of poverty—be solved worldwide. The Global Development Initiative premiered by Xi Jinping at this United Nations session has now placed “economic development as a human right” on the world table. Executive Intelligence Review has answered the United Nations, and the world, by providing a policy orientation for the now-distracted United States. The plan for Haiti invokes, implicitly, FDR’s Four Freedoms, and, explicitly, LaRouche’s Four Economic Laws, to chart a way forward, not only for Haiti, not only for the Caribbean, but by means of eradicating poverty through economic cooperation, for “everywhere in the world.” “YOUR DEATH WILL SAVE THE PLANET” There is only one problem. The financial neo-Malthusians intend to use the illiterate argument that “natural law” is above human rights, to introduce what Fred Wills used to call “the doctrine of regrettable necessity” as the means to argue that billions will have to go away to save the planet. The bill is beginning to come in for this sophistry, in astronomical gas and electricity prices, hyperinflation, supply chain breakdowns, cuts in living standards, and drops in life expectancy that, while blamed on the coronavirus pandemic, preceded it. As stated by Klaus Schwab in the book Stakeholder Capitalism:" The same force that helps people escape from poverty and lead a decent life is the one that is destroying the livability of our planet for future generations. The emissions that lead to climate change are not just the result of a selfish generation of industrialists or western baby boomers. They are the consequence of the desire to create a better future for oneself." Except that Schwab isn’t actually referring in this passage to “western baby boomers,” but to both the Chinese policies for the development of African nations, and the desire of African nations to create a better future. As the Club of Rome’s Alexander King wrote: “The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.” Especially the “high birth rate” in Africa—too many African “carbon footprints.” So, "regrettably", they imply, Africans must be reduced in their numbers, by any means necessary, in defense of "natural law." China’s calling the attention of the world to the crisis in Haiti at the United Nations, seen from the standpoint of the proposal in Executive Intelligence Review written by Richard Freeman and Cynthia Rush, places the United States in the position to choose, not the Tavistock choice method, but the “win-win” method which was always the essential characteristic of the American System which, as Henry Carey put it, “is the only one ever devised the tendency of which was that of elevating vehicle equalizing the condition of man throughout the world.”
|
The just-released pamphlet, “The Coming U.S. Economic Miracle on the New Silk Road,” is an outstanding summary of what can and must be done to reverse America’s induced self-destruction at the hands of the British “Intelligence.” Its fourteen distinct sections, including the introduction, can be studied consecutively; such study could be supported by short videos prepared in consultation with its authors. Any individual or group, no matter what age or level of education, that takes the time to work through the pamphlet’s contents over, for example, the next three months, especially in conjunction with campaigning for the Afghanistan/Haiti reconstruction and “world health platform” initiative we are vigorously advocating throughout our international organization, will reverse the collapse of our otherwise-doomed trans-Atlantic culture.Those who attempt to understand the significance of the LaRouche “Triple Curve” hyperbolic function, will come to recognize that a worldwide, sudden drop in human longevity such as has been experienced in the past 20 months (with the United States male workforce losing more than two years), cannot be explained through mere linear causation—“the coronavirus pandemic did it,” for example. Think of the recent, ever-changing pandemic as more of a “crystallization process” which reveals, even more than triggers, an underlying and perhaps previously unrecognized metastatic process, that must first be correctly diagnosed to be aggressively treated, and globally, throughout the entire organism. What we are now living through is a cumulative, overlapping set of processes of trans-Atlantic dissolution whose arc was determined even well before the August 15, 1971 taking of the U.S. dollar off the gold standard. It could have been willfully reversed by Lyndon LaRouche’s ideas and proposals. That did not happen. “Tristes presentimientos de lo que ha de acontecer—” “Sad foreboding of what is going to happen—” so reads the caption on the first engraving of Francisco Goya’s 82-plate examination of The Disasters of War. Goya’s whole work reflects upon the “inevitable” murderous consequences that were about to befall a self-sabotaged 1808 Spain at the hands of Napoleon, who was himself charged, as the puppet of British/Venetian financial interests, with the destruction of France and continental Europe. Today’s sad foreboding of an “inevitable” war with China, by a United States similarly deployed to destroy itself is, on the contrary, directly attacked and refuted in the title, contents, and the intent of “The Coming U.S. Economic Miracle on the New Silk Road.” There is neither a reason, nor an excuse, for accepting the unacceptable. In some ways, as in 1972, then with our “Blueprint For Extinction” pamphlet, The LaRouche Organization is now, on the question of development or depopulation, drawing a line of sanity in the sand. The very possibility for a World Land-Bridge solution to our otherwise inevitable mass destruction, including through thermonuclear war, is primarily the result of another “long wave” process much different from that of August 15, 1971. It was the opening up, in the aftermath of the fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989, of a Platonic form of strategic dialogue, notably first with Russia, but also with China, India, and many other nations. This was begun by Helga Zepp-LaRouche and Lyndon LaRouche, and this organization, in 1989-91 as the European Triangle/Eurasian Land-Bridge-New Silk Road. Three decades-plus later, when the China State Council Information Office announces the release of a paper entitled “China’s Epic Journey from Poverty to Prosperity,” we can state, with no exaggeration, that we played a central role in participating from the beginning, through that dialogue, in demonstrating that billions of people can, in principle, be lifted out of low life-expectancy, malnutrition, illiteracy, and despondency. We have acted, not through the still-subjugated power of the United States, but rather through the power of the self-conscious adoption, by China, of Alexander Hamilton’s and Abraham Lincoln’s American System with Chinese characteristics to, in fact, do what President John F. Kennedy tasked Americans, and the world, to do, as our pamphlet quotes him in the introduction—to “struggle against the common enemies of mankind: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself,” and win. This is a battle for no one nation, but all; for no one culture, but all; for no one individual, but all. In evaluating the just-concluded German federal elections, Helga Zepp-Larouche pointed out about “the 16 years of stagnation which went along with [Angela] Merkel, who was very efficient in breeding mediocrity. And therefore the present crop of politicians which you saw in these debates, was really the most mediocre crowd you had ever seen in German politics, and that’s just not fit to deal with the crises which will come for sure, and in part are already here.” She presented a detailed “breakdown of the breakdown,” and stated that “the outcome, whatever it will be, is for sure a turn in the direction of more instability and stupidity.” It was notable, Helga stated, that any international matter—Afghanistan, China, even the pandemic—in any real way, was prohibited from discussion, enforced by the corrupted “debate moderators.” As a result, the Lilliputians that will compose a not-so-grand-coalition there, whatever may be its ultimate configuration, will most likely still advocate the closing this year of three of the country’s remaining six nuclear power plants. (Of Germany’s original 17 nuclear plants, 11 have been rendered permanently inoperable.) “Tristes presentimientos de lo que…” But it isn’t true. Stupidity is not inevitable. Depraved indifference is not a condition, but a choice. Helga concluded by saying, “We should continue with our New Paradigm campaigns…a total paradigm shift has to be found with respect to Haiti and Afghanistan, This should really be our international strategic orientation.” That is the orientation, which, if stuck to, can truly create The Coming U.S. Economic Miracle on the New Silk Road.
|
China’s President Xi Jinping gave the closing speech at the 76th session of the General Assembly of the United Nations. During his speech, he said: “Facing the severe shocks of COVID-19, we need to work together to steer global development toward a new stage of balanced, coordinated and inclusive growth. To this end, I would like to propose a Global Development Initiative.”At the close of her discussion with the European organization on Tuesday, Helga Zepp-LaRouche said: “We have to escalate our intervention, counting on the fact that the majority of countries are moving in a different direction, of cooperation and not a military confrontation. But it is going to be, for sure, a roller coaster ahead. But we have to steer with the clearest strategic conception— that we have to get out of it with a New Paradigm, that has to start with a world health system, and the modern health system has to start in Afghanistan. So as long as we keep an absolute focus on that, I think we can catalyze whoever is a decent person, and that’s what has to be escalated on our side.” The statements of endorsement by Surgeon Generals Jocelyn Elders and David Satcher of the Schiller Institute Afghanistan perspective should be thought about, now, from the standpoint of the international potential of response to Xi Jinping’s speech of yesterday. The proposal for Pino Arlacchi to play a role in negotiating with the Afghanistan government, as a trusted and trustworthy senior figure committed to the eradication of the drug trade and the establishment of a health platform for that nation, should be endorsed wherever possible. Indeed, we have been escalating on our side. The LaRouche forces have in the last 48 hours made the ideas of Lyndon LaRouche resonate in Pakistan, China, France, and the United Nations, in addition to the various other places where organizers conducted physical deployments in the world, or spoke to people on the phone, or intervened in various conferences and gatherings. Sometimes we have been applauded, sometimes denounced, but never ignored. The polemical drive for a new era of cooperation through the principle of the Coincidence of Opposites, deployed as a strategic intervention in the Afghanistan theater, is the higher complex domain of military strategy, the “Paradiso,” a domain of power that creatures that dwell within the Inferno of geopolitics cannot even imagine to exist. In France, one think tank denounces the Schiller Institute in a 637-page document as involved in what they call “The Chinese operations of influence - A Machiavelian moment.” Machiavelli’s History of Florence was not consulted by them. It should have been. The two contrasting speeches of Biden and Xi—one from Venice, and the other from Florence—can be seen as the emerging book-ends of the debate on the topic, “development or depopulation,” that the philosophical association founded by Lyndon LaRouche must now propel to prominence worldwide. The LaRouche work, “There Are No limits To Growth,” from volume I of the LaRouche Legacy Foundation is, after all, the counterpole to the still-dominant Club of Rome’s Limits To Growth and later 1991 The First Global Revolution. This is not to stoop to the level of identifying the United States and China as two opposing teams in a soccer match. “Florence” and “Venice” here refer to the axioms actually underpinning the outlook of the two speeches given yesterday. The premises underlying Biden’s speech spell disaster. The premises underlying Xi’s speech define a productive future for mankind. Our association should conduct classes, wherever possible, on There Are No Limits To Growth, to allow our fellow citizens, especially youth, the choice to overturn the axioms they don’t know they have, so that they may take up a global development initiative in the form of the World Health Platform. Lyndon LaRouche, in a 1989 interview from his jail cell in Alexandria, Virginia, offered this useful advice on how to teach: "In knowledge, in teaching, you have two problems. One, you have to get away from sheer, arbitrary irrationality, the prejudices that people bring into the classroom, so forth, and say, well, let’s get this in an orderly fashion, at least. Let’s give that much to Aristotle, let’s get your knowledge in a consistent, logically organized form . And then say, well, now, we know this is not the truth, but it’s very useful to put it in this form because this enables us to conceptualize what we have to do to correct formal knowledge, to arrive at what really is the truth. And so, I was using all kinds of devices to try to get students to focus to that point. But my idea of the course was always to bring the course to precisely that point, (that) is, to present an orderly, logical form of representation of the field; then show paradoxes which flow even from the cleanest, most rigorous presentation of that field, and then show what the solution to the paradox is, and hope that the light would go on in the students’ head. And the student for himself or herself would have realized, “oh yes! This is the solution.” And experience the creation of the solution, so to speak, in their own mind. Which is always my pedagogical… I like to teach that way. I wouldn’t enjoy teaching under any other circumstances." Dante Alighieri’s forecast of the tragedy that would befall Florence, the Commedia, used this Socratic method of teaching. This is demonstrated through Dante’s dialogue with Virgil, and later transformed the higher dialogue with Beatrice on matters of scientific method. In this way, Dante used Plato’s dramatic method to provide a solution, both to the contemporary calamity that Dante richly described, and to our own. He not only placed many of his contemporaries in the appropriate circles of a Hell of their own design; he not only instructed the reader how to extricate oneself step by step from that Inferno, into Purgatory, through the intercession of the poet Virgil; he also demonstrated the power of the mind could discover new physical principles, new degrees of freedom, as later seen in Florence in the form of the Brunelleschi Dome. The United States need not be condemned to conflict with China on behalf of Orcus, the god of the underworld, who was, by the way, also the punisher of broken oaths. (France, take note.) President Xi offered this alternative: “We need to seize the historic opportunities created by the latest round of technological revolution and industrial transformation, redouble efforts to harness technological achievements to boost productivity, and foster an open, fair, equitable and non-discriminatory environment for the development of science and technology. We should foster new growth drivers in the post-COVID era.” The proposition is “There are no limits to growth.” Who will oppose it and who will defend it? Let the Great Debate begin!
|
The remarks made by U.S. Air Force General John Hyten, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to a meeting yesterday of the Brookings Institution, are chilling in their implication. Hyten stated that he believed it to be all-too-possible that a shooting war between Russia and the United States, or between China and the United States, was a real danger. The build-up in new types of thermonuclear weaponry and deployment systems, and the lack of trust in negotiations, indeed the lack of any negotiations at all on matters of strategic weaponry between, for example, China and the United States, means that we are sliding, perhaps duped by computer-driven systems-analytical miscalculation, into “doing the unthinkable which nonetheless becomes inevitable.” “I know the President — President Biden — and President Xi have talked a couple times this year. That’s important, but I hope we can broaden that conversation all the way down to the military-to-military level as well,” Hyten said. “We’re having strategic stability talks with Russia to make sure we understand where we are, not just in the nuclear realm, but in space as well. We need to have that conversation start with the Chinese, we really do. We need to be able to sit down, I need to be able to sit down — Secretary Austin, the political leadership, the State Department — and talk about these issues with China. Because as different as we are, we do have a fundamental common goal, and that is to never go to war with each other.”Hyten stated that the other, non-negotiating approach might well destroy the world. He also observed that his Chinese and Russian military opposites, such as Ryabkov, assert that it has been the United States, through actions like placing thermonuclear weapons and “defensive platforms” in Europe, that has provoked this condition. Other than this and a few other important but singular calls for negotiations, however, so far, the United States has offered no known applicable strategic “reverse-paradigm” approach, or even insight into how such a reversal of outlook would be possible. The Afghanistan proposal of the Committee for the Coincidence of Opposites proposed by Helga Zepp-LaRouche has many applications which, taken together, could undo the present self-imposed geopolitical Gordian knot. That proposal can also provide a guide for the morally perplexed of the State Department and various European intelligence agencies that still cannot fathom why, or how they were militarily defeated in Afghanistan. It was not the Taliban, but their own “Project Democracy/”Permanent Revolution" obsolete axioms, postulates, and presuppositions about reality, especially in the new era of Covid, that defeated them there. Military force, history should have taught them, is the precise opposite of what must be deployed in order to ensure strategic victory in this circumstance. The Taliban must be the acknowledged negotiating partner; the people of Afghanistan must be fed and medically sustained; the governing institutions, particularly the financial institutions must not be assaulted by trans-Atlantic sanctions. Trusted negotiators like Pino Arlacchi who know the nation and its people should be given the authority to assist in beginning the process of reconstruction, including the transition away from the Anglo-American supervised opium production. The United States, absent a military presence, should seek, in the theater of Afghanistan, to engage particularly the Chinese, such that General Hyten’s desire for military negotiation is grounded on at least a demonstration of trust and collaboration between China and the United States in a non-military task in a post-war zone. The idea, the strategic-military conception, of the Committee for the Coincidence of Opposites is that the non-lethal-force branches of the world’s respective militaries (such as the Surgeon General’s Office of the United States), can be augmented by large brigades of youth deployed for a life-saving mission especially in the health-deprived sections of the planet. Ironically, this may very well now be the only way to prevent the outbreak of what one U.S. researcher has called “Bubonic Plague 2.0,” a mutation combining the infectious capabilities of the Delta variant of Covid with something as horrific as Ebola, the Marburg virus, or other diseases. In “Gandhi’s Vision for a New Paradigm in International Relations, a World Health System, and Direct Non-Violent Action in Times of Social Breakdown,” Helga Zepp-LaRouche states: "Since it is the young people of this world whose future is the most threatened by the combination of the pandemic and the economic crisis, there needs to be a perspective that addresses the problem of the pandemic, and simultaneously gives them a concrete way for productive tasks…. “[T]he COVID-19 pandemic and future pandemics can only be dealt with if every single country on the planet has a modern health system, and that requires a much larger cadre of trained medical personnel than presently available. There is presently an effort underway to set up a Committee in the U.S., Europe, and Africa to organize partnerships between universities, clinics, hospitals, and medical facilities. The task of these partnerships is to train unemployed youth, to first become medical auxiliaries and then medical personnel, on the model of Roosevelt’s Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC).” The present conditions in Afghanistan, whereas David Beasley put it at 14 million people in danger of immediate starvation (with another 14 million just behind them), and where so many nations—Iran, Pakistan, China, Russia, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, etc.—have a vested interest in not merely containing terrorism, but in creating economic development corridors. These can act as pathways of, not merely stability, but physical renewal. Afghanistan is today, at this moment, a “zone of negative curvature,” the best of all possible regions for potential application of the “coincidence of opposites” method. The underestimation of the war-avoidance implications of Nicholas of Cusa’s 1439 Council of Florence diplomacy, and of the strategic warfare conditions under which the De Docta Ignorantia came to be written, has meant that Cusa has been nearly inaccessible as a thinker to those that need to know him most. The “Teardrop of Grief” Memorial carried out in New Jersey on Sunday, Sept. 12, and the statements made by the participants, particularly the Americans Terry Strada and Kirk Wiebe, as well as the officials from the city of Bayonne, were the implicit statements of a policy intention which can in fact become hegemonic in the United States, and ironically, therefore in the world: respect for other nations, a passionate commitment to the health and general welfare of everyone on the planet, and a resolution of conflict through non-violent means. The opposition, in the form of the British Crown’s Tinny Blare and others, may know what they intend, but do not know what they are doing. The problem is somewhat accurately described by Caitlin Johnstone, in a Sept. 14 piece entitled “Our Gods Have No Heads”: "We’re on a planet-sized haunted hayride to Armageddon, and no one is driving. “Sure at first glance it looks like someone’s driving … Then you look closer still and … What’s ultimately driving things is not so much the people within those institutions as the institutions themselves, which operate based on motives of profit and growth that are built into them and are entirely divorced from normal human values…. And the problem of course is that these are not wise and beneficent gods, they are manmade conceptual constructs with no more intelligence or insight than that growth-at-all-cost values system held by a cancerous tumor. The modern gods are mindless devourers who are controlled by no one. The modern gods have no heads.” [Emphasis in original.]
|
To announce the creation of a new Schiller Institute webpage entitled “Shakespeare In Exile,” the following quote was taken from Lyndon LaRouche, whose 99th birthday occurs today: “…He has pitted his life for his nation’s justice, and for the cause of all this world’s oppressed besides. For this cause, he has adopted the insults which the wicked and the fools of this world have come to heap upon the mere mention of my name…” Lyndon LaRouche, “On the Subject of the Sixtieth Birthday of His Excellency, the Honorable Frederick [R.] Wills, Esquire.,” Sept 16,1988.That standard of integrity is what is required in order to think clearly, non-tragically, in a time of crisis. Even though correct decisions, sometimes of momentous import, may be courageously made by a head of state or others, the durable survival of a nation or a civilization demands an intellectual consistency that can only be achieved, both on the part of the citizenry as well as leadership, through an immersion in the production and/or performance of Classical art. Fred Wills, the former Foreign Minister and Justice Minister of Guyana, on September 27, 1976, addressed the United Nations on the subject, not merely of debt moratoria for Third World Nations, but for the establishment of Lyndon LaRouche’s International Development Banks. He was able to find the courage to do this, when others failed, including during that UN session, because of his soul having been strongly rooted in Classical cultural studies, as the primary weapon he fiercely wielded against the racism and depravity of the “British Commonwealth.” Two years later, Wills went into involuntary exile in the United States, joining Lyndon LaRouche, not only in a battle against the Malthusian population-reduction policies of Henry Kissinger, George H.W.Bush and other British Intelligence agents and assets. He also taught, as well as re- studied the works of Plato, Sophocles, Aeschylus, and, most of all, William Shakespeare. Today, it appears that the Malthusians, the would-be Iagos attempting to pull together the COP26 Climate Change conference in Glasgow, have suddenly realized that the “Fourth World,” those countries once red-lined by World Bank head Robert MacNamara in 1974, and who are the primary targets for extinction by the “global warmers,” are not necessarily prepared to play Othello. They might, instead, embarrass them by skipping the solemnly lunatic proceedings altogether. Of 62 countries identified by the UK as “red zone countries”—countries that have small or negligible portions of their populations vaccinated—61 of them are in the (black, brown and yellow) “Third (Fourth) World.” Since those coming from such red zone countries must quarantine for at least ten days after they arrive in Glasgow, the danger is that, given the expense, the disease, and most importantly, the opportunity, many nations may just not show up at all. When combined with the known resistance from Russia, China, and India to the whole global warming pseudoscience, it seems to have become clear to British intelligence that it were wise to “get out in front of this thing.” Thus, no fewer than 1,500 environmentalist groups are now calling for the conference to be postponed. Their spokesman is one Taneem Essop of Climate Action Network International. Essop, the executive director of CAN-I, is an asset of British intelligence. She was previously the International Climate Policy Advocate of the World Wide Fund for Nature/World Wildlife Fund. She also worked for the British Council, sometimes referred to as part of “the soft power extension of UK foreign policy,” as an “Education Officer.” The British Council, founded in 1934, is a “nondepartmental public body” sponsored by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. COP 26 Glasgow can now provide the same opportunity as did the recent British freakout over the Afghanistan pullout, to reveal, especially to the credulous, the collusion between treasonous factions of the American military, financial, media, etc. establishment with the City of London policy interests antithetical to everything the United States stands for. The synarchy, whether represented by buffoons like Brazil’s Bolsonaro, wankers like Tony Blair, ghouls like Mark Carney, or the seemingly unlimited supply of shnooks knighted by the Queen over her 69-year reign, is defeatable by those with the courage to think Classically, like Beethoven, Handel, Bach, Schiller, kicking against the pricks (in every sense of that expression.) And that is why the British truly hate Shakespeare. Please also note an emerging story, contained in today’s briefing, that will be evolving in the next days and weeks—the Russian discussion of biological weapons and weapons labs in Georgia, Ukraine, and possibly other locations, operated by NATO and the Anglo-Americans, in connection with setting the record straight about the Second World War. Given the 20th anniversary commemorations this week, the fact that the anthrax attack beginning September 18, 2001, would initially shut down the Congress of the United States for weeks, and that the grade of anthrax deployed in that attack was declared by the deputy assistant director of Ft. Detrick to have been “too sophisticated to have been developed by us,” biological warfare, for better or worse, is sure to be discussed, even, perhaps, at the United Nations as it opens next week. In conclusion, Fred Wills offered these observations about Lyndon and Helga Zepp-LaRouche, observations that are appropriately cited for Lyn’s birthday today. “We are blessed with myriad strengths. We focus so much on what the enemy says about us, that we forget what we are ourselves. The chief of our strengths is the creative leadership, and the fertile intellects of Lyndon and Helga LaRouche. We have, in the Schiller Institute, the formal embodiment of the soul of the human genius. We must show ourselves worthy of such a heritage… I wish on your behalf to tell Lyn and Helga, that we intend to be worthy of their leadership. And to tell our enemies… that we shall never fail, we shall never falter, we shall always open new flanks, and we shall always strike mighty blows over and over and over again, until justice returns, as the imperishable axis of our human existence…” Fred Wills, Andover, Massachusetts, 1988.
|
“This decision about Afghanistan is not just about Afghanistan. It’s about ending an era of major military operations to remake other countries.” The American Presidency, as represented by Joe Biden, has, as of August 31, potentially shut the door on more than three decades of post-1989 trans-Atlantic triumphalism by the Project for a New American Century (PNAC); by Bush #41 Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney’s neocon 1990 “5/20 Committee;” by Margaret Thatcher’s and George Bush’s 1990-1991 “Desert Shield/Desert Storm” Gulf War; by Tony Blair’s 1999 Chicago “responsibility to protect” speech; and by the "forever wars of the post September 11, 2001 period.With respect to Afghanistan, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin has offered, not an admonition but a sound proposal: “Any action taken by the [United Nations] Security Council, including the timing, should help to ease the conflict instead of flare up tensions, and facilitate a smooth transition rather than plunge the country back into chaos…. We hope that relevant countries will realize the fact that withdrawal is not the end of responsibility, but the beginning of reflection and correction…. The US and some other Western countries should provide Afghanistan with urgently needed assistance for the economy, livelihood and humanitarian needs, help Afghan people overcome difficulties as soon as possible and start peaceful reconstruction at an early date. What they should not do is to simply take to their heels and leave a mess behind….” The end of geopolitics is the beginning of wisdom here. And not mere “geo-economics” replacing geopolitics. A new idea, the idea of increasing the potential-relative population density of the planet as a whole, by strategically increasing population to increase the physical wealth of the planet as a whole—including the biosphere itself—through the enthusiastic cooperation of sovereign, independent nation-states, is the “outrageous” idea to which the trans-Atlantic world has to be won, on behalf of humanity as a whole. It won’t be easy. But “You cram these words into mine ears against /The stomach of my sense” need not be the presumed response from all factions of the United States and the trans-Atlantic world. The living body of work contained in the economic proposals of Lyndon LaRouche, including how to resolve the seemingly insoluble problems of each area of a world now embroiled in the tempest of conflict, disease surge, and underdevelopment, must now be set free to rebuild the Earth. That is the actual mission of our LaRouche Legacy Fund archive project, one which must over the course of the next months make available in video, written, and oral form the method of problem-solving contained in the hundreds of works of LaRouche. While other nations, particularly those that have initiated and affiliated with the Belt and Road initiative, have clearly manifested their desire and capacity for self-development, Lyndon LaRouche’s approach to physical economy, and his invention of the “development corridor” as the physical basis for an upshift in the evolution of the biosphere as a whole, is qualitatively superior to every notion of future progress presently underway. Transmitting LaRouche’s unique contribution to world knowledge, as well as to the reproduction of human creativity, is our purpose, particularly in the next days to months. Afghanistan is a presently unique situation, the theater of vast potential transformation by means of which a multiply connected process of world economic development can be triggered throughout the planet. In this way, we avoid the seemingly inevitable onset of this greatest of still-impending, but rapidly on-setting human tragedies. If it seems to be inexorable, that is only to those that lack the courage to change their axioms. Though LaRouche is not physically here to witness it, as in Shakespeare’s The Tempest, the winds of destruction, blowing the lethal three-part pandemic of disease, war, and famine/poverty to the shores of the Atlantic world, have delivered the enemies of humanity to the judgement of current history. That current history will not tolerate the silly self-eliminating utopianism of the Green New Deal. Even as the Scottish National Party mistakenly brings the Greens into government for the first time, and Angela Merkel gives her keynote speech at the 50th anniversary of the founding of the German chapter of Greenpeace, the world recognizes the vapid promises of green bliss are a recipe for death. “No use of metal, corn, or wine, or oil/No occupation; all men idle, all, and women,too.” We must now orchestrate, not an ending, but a new beginning to an Afghanistan circumstance that becomes, if not a convivencia, at least a dialogue of civilizations. Politics as art—not “the art of the deal”—is the only recourse the world now has there. In Laughter, Music and Creativity, Lyndon LaRouche says, “The crux of the genuine issue is the principle of Freedom in respect to Necessity. The analogy of the creative musician to the creative physicist bears out here most emphatically…the essence of creativity is problem-solving. In the final analysis, all creative problem-solving subsumes man’s mastery of nature, mastery of the implicitly adducible laws of the material universe.” This new American era of cooperation, of a return to the “human foreign policy” of Classical scholar John Quincy Adams, the Secretary of State and American President who later successfully defended in court the kidnapped Africans of the slave-ship Amistad, must take into account the true interests of everyone in the world. The Helga Zepp-LaRouche-proposed World Health Platform, including public sanitation, clean water, medicines, and food, as World Food Program director David Beasley has recently demanded for Afghanistan, is the means to tame the sea of troubles facing the world, and by changing one’s axioms, end them.
|
Babylon, It Is Time To Listen To The Wise Words of Lyndon LaRouche No form of Babylonian priesthood, neither that of the original immoral Chaldeans, nor their latter-day expression in the form of the IPCC’s mathematical model mouthpieces, is actually capable of human forecasting. The idea that Grete Thunberg can be quoted at all, let alone in response to the just-released United Nations pronouncement by the hapless systems analyst Antonio Guterres that we must “sound the death knell for fossil fuels”—that is, kill hundreds of millions of the world’s poor in the next eight years, in order to save the planet—would simply have been recognized as mad 50 years ago. What, however, was not recognized a half-century ago, was the deadly Malthusian outlook that underlay the British-engineered decision to take the dollar off the gold standard, triggered by means of the November 1967 assault by the British pound against the dollar. The actual gun to the head of the Bretton Woods system had been “locked and loaded” earlier through the assassination of JFK in 1963 and the subsequent “countercultural paradigm-shift” expressed in the slipping, and then plunge into darkness known as the Vietnam War.From his work from 1948-52, his economic forecast of 1957, his piece “Depression Ahead” in 1961, and his then-increasingly famous forecast concerning the end of the Bretton Woods System, 1966-71, Lyndon LaRouche was able to see what others refused to see, or could not see. They, the political scientists, economists, and “intelligentsia,” were blinded because of their aspirations for membership in, acceptance by, or work for the modern Babylonian priesthood and financial oligarchy’s rule by pretense and dissembling. As the book of Daniel tells us: “Then came in, all the king’s wise men: but they could not read the writing, nor make known to the king the interpretation thereof.” The silly dissembling of Kirby regarding the American pullout from Afghanistan, extolling the “reliable” capabilities of the Afghanistan military, and berating the “irresponsibility” of Pakistan in giving safe haven to terrorists that the United States and London originally trained and financed over forty years ago; the embarrassing pretensions of Blinken, upbraiding Russia and China at the United Nations Security Council regarding their lack of respect for the “Law of the Seas Convention,” which the United States itself has never signed; the criminally silly aspersions cast at China as “the original sinner” regarding the coronavirus, when no one has died of the virus there for the past six months, in a nation of 1.4 billion people; this mental behavior, on the part of erstwhile leadership and large numbers of the population alike, strays beyond pagan hubris, requiring something Biblical as a corrective metaphor. Therefore, consider the case of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon (not Long Island, but present-day Iraq) "The king spake and said, ‘is not this great Babylon, that I have built for the house of the kingdom by the might of my power, and for the honour of my majesty?’ While the word was in the King’s mouth, there fell a voice from heaven, saying,‘O King Nebuchadnezzar, to thee it is spoken; The kingdom is departed from thee. And they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field; they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen..’ (In the same hour was the thing fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar…. Nedbuchadnezzar, however, recovers from his madness. “And at the end of the days I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the most High, and I praised and honored him..whose dominion is an everlasting dominion….At the same time my reason returned unto me; and for the glory of my kingdom, mine honor and brightness returned unto me….and I was established in my kingdom, and excellent majesty was added unto me.” Nebuchadnezzar’s journey from triumphalism, to madness, to reason, is a cautionary tale for our time. This time, though, the future of the entire human race hangs in the balance. Babylon, after all, did not have nuclear weapons. More positively, Russia and China are now collaborating in offering their view of humanity’s preferred path forward. India in an indirect, and Australia in a direct manner have just made it known that they do not intend to comply with the impending Glascow requirements, that is, to commit suicide for the greater glory of the City of London or Wall Street. Signs of resistance are evident in the trans-Atlantic sector, in Switzerland, Germany, and the Netherlands. The recent call by American doctors to manufacture vaccines in 50 nations and deploy for a comprehensive eradication of lethal pandemics in 200 nations is another indication of what sort of optimism can be generated even in the face of a mass tragedy. What is needed is an intellectual renaissance, out of the presently descending dark age. What is needed here and now is to generate the equivalent intellectual excitement worldwide, that was generated by the economic forecast, and subsequent classes given by Lyndon LaRouche in the immediate aftermath of August 15, 1971, fifty years ago. The paradoxes that fill the minds of those that would today lead the nations, from the coronavirus to cultural collapse to financial breakdown to scientific crisis, can be answered in the same way that Nebuchadnezzar did. As he listened to the wise words of Daniel, today’s Babylonians can be caused, by the power of Promethean forecasting, to listen to the certain trumpet of Lyndon LaRouche.
|
The increasingly complex web of processes into which the ICLC has now poised itself to intervene, are the new terrain of a reality that will never again look like that of the pre-2020 world. A unique, though not new, compositional approach must be taken, to change the minds of the people of the trans-Atlantic sector. As the Austrian chancellor said of the Greens, “It would be totally wrong to believe that we could save the climate in the future by asceticism… the only right approach is to rely on innovation and technology…I do not share at all the view that our direction should be going back to the Stone Age.”We must keep in mind that the intersection of Beethoven’s 250th anniversary, and the 50th anniversary of the successful forecast by LaRouche of the collapse of the Bretton Woods System, can compel, at this time of conjunctural crisis, serious reflection upon the method of hypothesis generation characteristic of both composers. It is to this that we should now seek to draw the attention of participants in the upcoming August 14 symposium. The LaRouche forecasts, like the compositions of Beethoven, are the shadow of an unseen power, a principle of nonviolent power, a power of change “which floats, though unseen, among us;” otherwise we were doomed by what lies immediately ahead—not by our prospects, but by our axioms. Remember that the city-state of Florence was not, as the credulous believed, depopulated by the Black Death, but by the “Black Guelph,” as well as other factions of the oligarchy. In fact, the city had begun to lose population from the time of Dante’s exile, and consequent triumph of the murderous financial policies of the Italian banking houses. From a height of 105-125,000 in 1300-25, it had declined to 80,000 before the 1347-49 Bubonic Plague, in which about half that number died. Even by 1425, when Cusa was 24, Toscanelli 25, and Brunelleschi 48 years old, the population was only 60,000. Monetarism demanded, and secured, the self-cannibalization of Europe. The disease was the means, not the cause. As then, so now. To correct the (actually) generation-long demographic collapse of the United States and Europe, the climbing suicide rates, the menticide known as drug addiction, and the musical score that accompanies it all, seen in the lethal “Lollapalooza St Vitus dance” of last weekend in Chicago, requires a metanoia, an inversion of mind-set. Dante’s great poem, the Commedia, used a new form of musical composition, and a newly invented language, to create a vernacular, a “native tongue” capable of conveying profound and impassioned conceptions beyond the confines of the doomed educated class, to all the people, creating an independent nation in character, if not in form. It is this, which is comparable to what is required of us now. It is also this which is the contents of the writings, when studied and applied, of Lyndon LaRouche. From this standpoint, look then, as Dante did, at the ostensible prospects before us—what we see in the emergence of new strains of disease, including the treatment-resistant Candida auris “super-bug,” identified as present in New York City hospitals since at least 2019, itself the consequence of failing to care for the General Welfare through public health and sanitation measures, including drug eradication and mental health, which were insisted upon by LaRouche in 1974, 1985, and 2001, the latter through the D.C.General Hospital battle against what LaRouche referred to at the time as “germ warfare.” Then, look at what China, Cuba, and other nations have done in the medical field, despite opposition from the trans-Atlantic “depopulation lobby”. Look: While the Biden Administration drunkenly asserts that it leads the world in vaccine mobilization, China has in fact created vaccine production and research centers in many nations, distributed some 350-plus million doses of vaccine worldwide, and organized 28 nations to join in launching the China Initiative for Belt and Road Partnership on Covid-19 Vaccine Cooperation. The difference between China and the United States is duly noted in the nations that have received vaccines, versus the places that have been promised. The pathetic EU, which promised 200 million vaccines to help the developing sector, has delivered on 8 million—4% of what they promised. The difference is measured in lives, not numbers. Look: While Bloomberg’s recent deployment to kill the coal industry (and install Joe Biden in the White House) may successfully kill coal in the United States, unless we can stop it, that doesn’t go for places where people don’t relish committing suicide for a seat at a coronavirus-infected trans-Atlantic table. India’s present decision to walk away from the Glascow COP 26 trap, and its crazy “kill coal” project, has particularly upset Sir Mike “Mouseolini” Bloomberg, as just expressed in his news service: “When India failed to show up at climate talks in London last week, the meeting’s British hosts took it as a snub. It was also a stark reminder of how hard it’s going to be for diplomats to pull the global climate back from the brink of disaster, with less than three months to go before the next round of high-stakes negotiations.” This, however, is still to view reality from the one vantage point—the inside of Dante’s Inferno. Let us momentarily shift our view to another, that of Dante’s Paradiso. SciTechDaily reported on August 3: “Solar Orbiter and BepiColombo are set to make space history with two Venus flybys just 33 hours apart on August 9 and 10, 2021.” The Solar Orbiter is a joint NASA/ESA project, which will investigate the poles of the Sun for the first time. BepiColombo is a Japanese Space Agency/ESA project investigating Mercury. Why are they redezvousing at Venus? No, it’s not an extra-terrestrial hookup; they will be, in fact, the proverbial two spaceships passing. They won’t even be able to take pictures of each other. “The two spacecraft need the gravitational swingby to help them lose a little orbital energy in order to reach their destinations towards the center of the Solar System.” It’s more like a two-part invention, a contrapuntal intersection of the gravitational field of Venus intended to deploy that gravitational field as a brake, allowing both spacecraft to access and “ride” that orbital pathway to significantly different ends. And BepiColombo will be able to take some pictures from Venus as it moves away from the planet, and maybe a couple of partial selfies as well. Solar Orbiter’s first visit to the poles of the Sun will be March of 2025, with later visits scheduled for 2027, 2028, and 2029. This represents the minimal vantage point, the minimal level of physical economy, and is the minimal level of civilization for the human race. Seen from the vantage point of Dante’s Paradiso, human navigation of the Solar System is Stage One of culture; human navigation of the Milky Way galaxy is Stage Two; human navigation among galaxies is Stage Three. Anything less than that represents the infancy, childhood and adolescence of humanity. And thus, the science behind the engineering and navigation of these and other missions being carried out by more and more nations, is the minimal conceptual standpoint for a true science of physical economy, a standpoint clearly stated in the LaRouche works There Are No Limits To Growth and Earth’s Next Fifty Years. The method of the Committee for the Coincidence of Opposites, as applied in the past twelve days, is a reflection of that method of composition that Dante, Beethoven, and LaRouche had mastered. It is “politics as art.” It is what can give us the power, not through influential people, but through the influence of ideas, to even at this last moment, provide a pathway from Hell to Purgatory, when looked at from the standpoint of the Paradiso, the Promethean mountaintop of forecasting. It is that which underlies the urgent strategic importance of the August 14 symposium.
|
Something may be developing in Afghanistan, involving forces from the United States, Russia, China, Pakistan, and several nations of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. You can tell, because everything in the power of British “Intelligence” is being done to force Biden to denounce China and Xi Jinping, now through re-running “RussiaGate” as “the Chinese hacked Microsoft.” The United States, the British declare, must not be allowed to do with China what it has just done with Russia through person-to-person talks between the heads of state. American representatives, however, have been involved in high-level discussions whose prospects for changing disastrous, decades-long failed policy are as promising as our efforts, and those of our allies, will make them. All concentration must be forced in the direction of undermining the axioms of Anglo-American failure that have characterized the past 20 years, since the still-unexplained events of 9/11, and the derived “Responsibility To Protect” preventive war policies—practices declared “crimes against humanity” at Nuremberg in 1949, policies that were also instigated, as in 2002-2003 through British Intelligence’s “dodgy dossier.”The international strategic deployment which is the subject of the three-movement organizing process of the next month, indicated by the “date-markers” July 24, July 31, and August 14, requires what Lyndon LaRouche referred to as “visualizing the complex domain.” In the spirit of “listening to the wise words of Lyndon LaRouche,” it were advisable to consult his conception of creativity in music in order to understand how to better inform what we are actually trying to do in these next 30 days. The following is from a September 14,1995, memo, “Comment On Rene Sigerson’s Memo On Opus 131.” “How Musical Ideas Become “The relevant special significance of the Op. 131, is that its organization, as a whole, around transitions, forces the musician to attend to the reality, that the idea of the composition as a whole, is nothing other than a platonic ‘One,’ for which the ordering of the ‘Many’ according to nothing but a constant notion of change is the crucial feature of the development. Compare this with the case of our now-much-cited case of the Eratosthenes’ estimate of the curvature of the earth. It is the manifest inconsistency among a series of astronomical observations, which is the experiential referent for Eratosthenes’ idea of the curvature of the earth. It is the process of reducing that series of errors to a notion of ordered change, which leads to the idea of curvature. So in a musical developmental process, it is the adducing of the existence of an ordering principle which subsumes a series of developmentally ordered changes, which implies the idea of the composition as a whole. “Thus, if one states the formal expression of the developmental ordering of the entirety of the Opus 131, the idea of the composition as a whole is implicitly stated as the platonic idea of a unified process of Becoming. This implies the corresponding attempt to generate the notion of a Good.” Leibniz’s idea of the Good in politics, an idea which was the bedrock of the American Revolution’s “the pursuit of Happiness,” is what the Schiller Institute, as another form of expression of the intent of the LaRouche’s Presidential campaigns, is daring to promulgate through proposals like the present Afghanistan initiative that we have suddenly, without preparation or warning, “so nobly advanced.” The Good always poses the greatest threat to the self-doomed imperialists of several empires, most emphatically the British. The “arc” of our intervention including its July 24, July 31 and August 14 inflection points, is a single process of change, a “One,” intended to secure the establishment of an international agreement, among Russia, China, The United States, and India, to spearhead the successful and timely creation of a world health platform as the basis for the eradication of poverty and pandemic disease planet-wide. That proposal, not “zero carbon emissions,” is a worthwhile goal for 2030-2040. It should be adopted by those nations, as China adopted the ending of poverty for itself, and accomplished it; but, now, given to the world as the mission for Earth’s next generation (next 25 years.) Earth’s next 50 years as discussed in the eponymous work of Lyndon LaRouche, is the “envelope,” as well as the “pedal point” for the discussions of the next month, particularly that of August 14-15. Given “the march of folly” we see displayed once again in the completely predictable “resurgence” of the coronavirus pandemic, as well as in the foolish “war maneuvers and war games” against Russia and China, that health platform may be the only available pathway to avoid the self-immolation of trans-Atlantic civilization which the tragic, “Wagnerian” performance of many nations’ present leadership-circles foreshadows. Afghanistan has been proposed by Helga Zepp-LaRouche as the theater of battle upon which we must intervene for the adoption of that “reversal of fortune.” We can be the non-tragic exception to the rulers. We are capable of changing the axiomatic, compulsive doom. Afghanistan is only the graveyard for empires; for patriots and world citizens, it can be the land of a thousand cities, and the New Silk Road just as it once was, but better. What we propose may be opposite to every instinct of the world’s ruling bodies of the past half-century, but it is natural to those who consider humanity’s General Welfare to be the first and only truly human unit of measurement of progress. The too-long-deferred dream of FDR, Sukharno, Nkrumah, Nehru, JFK, Pope Paul VI, Martin Luther King, and many others, the dream of Hamilton’s First and Lincoln’s Second American Revolution, is achievable, if we choose to visualize it as Beethoven and LaRouche do.
|
Yes, it’s true that the BBC reported yesterday that the HMS Defender’s foray into Russian territorial waters was a deliberate provocation that was, as BBC reporter Jonathan Beale, who was on the destroyer, said, “a deliberate move to make a point to Russia.” But what was the point? Was it, perhaps, that “Whom the gods would destroy, they first make MAD?” Were the British unintentionally underscoring the theme designated by Helga Zepp-LaRouche for the first panel of the upcoming Schiller Institute conference?The British, incensed by the fact of the Putin-Biden summit, and the communique that echoed Reagan-Gorbachev 1985, stating that a nuclear war can never be won, and must therefore never be fought, decided to play “Who’s The Boss of the Trans-Atlantic Alliance?” in Russian territorial waters on June 23. Being literally, as well as littorally-minded, they attempted to “test the waters,” and found them dangerously warm. It might have been easier to read the recently-released RAND report (June 23,) which almost told the truth: “NATO might lose a nuclear war with Russia.” “Although the overall military power of the United States and the NATO alliance vastly outstrips that of Russia, a regional conflict close to Russia’s borders would pose enormous challenges and could result in defeat for the West.” Only polygon-to-circle closer to the truth, though,because, indeed, there is no “might” about it. The RAND report itself, probably influenced by earlier fantasies such as the “Prompt Global Strike” mirage, is delusional. Last week’s Geneva communique, on the other hand, was accurate: nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. Reality, however, has rarely been a British strong suit. Evil, more often than not, bases its dirty practices on desire, not reality. “Dirty Bertie” Russell, whom Lyndon LaRouche called “the most evil man of the twentieth century,” was dominated by a lustful desire for the resurrection of an imperial world order that he knew to be doomed. In a 1952 interview, on or about his 80th birthday, which can be viewed on YouTube, Bertrand Russel said," It’s very difficult for anybody born since 1914, to realize how profoundly different the world is now from what it was when I was a child…. A world where ancient empires vanish like morning mist… We have to accustom ourselves to Asiatic self- assertion…It is an extraordinarily difficult thing for an old man to live in such a world.." So, like many a lecherous old man, he sought to destroy it. “Russell made more than a dozen public statements in speeches and articles concerning Russia and war in the 1945-48 period,” Ray Perkins, Jr wrote in the paper “Bertrand Russell and Preventive War”. In a footnote to his article, Perkins states: “[I]n a televised interview with John Freeman published on the 19th of March, 1959, Russell claimed that he was prepared to go to war if the Soviets had not given in: ‘you can’t threaten unless you’re prepared to have your bluff called.’” Climate change and thermonuclear war are a single strategy of the descendants of Russell. NATO, as you will read, is retooling itself as the primary world advocate for “saving the Earth,” echoing the Aquarian-utopian premises of earlier fascist movements, as the book “How Green Were The Nazis?” partially documented, and the Schiller Institute’s own The Hitler Book" showed more thoroughly some years ago. British Mini-Minister for the Armed Forces James Heappey, in a speech before the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), spoke about the implications of climate change on the Armed Forces: "According to a report by the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, current trends show that when the Arctic is fully open, there will be a potential reduction in travel times and fossil fuel costs of more than 40 per cent to maritime shipping. Elsewhere, Oxford University’s Future of Arctic Enterprise report states that the Arctic seabed contains about 13 per cent of the world’s remaining undiscovered oil, 30 per cent of the undiscovered natural gas and 20 per cent of the undiscovered natural gas liquids…. “Now, I’m an enthusiastic ‘green’, and I wouldn’t want anybody to think that I am somehow celebrating the opening up of a Northern Sea Route with the opportunities that it brings for fossil fuel extraction. In fact, quite the reverse—I wish that this was not a threat that we had to face. But my job is to work out what we need to do to keep the UK safe and it is a sad reality that the High North could become a potential flashpoint as a result of climate change. “Moving away from the Arctic, another key geo-strategic challenge caused by climate change is desertification. In May I had the opportunity to visit countries along the Sahel, including Mali and further along in the Lake Chad Basin, both Nigeria and Cameroon. I saw first-hand the desert’s increasing encroachment upon the land, where already scarce natural resources are gradually being swallowed up….” At the Moscow Conference on International Security, Russian Security Council chief Nikolai Patrushev also pointed to the Arctic, but with a difference. “NATO’s activity for militarizing the Arctic, especially the deployment of new military infrastructure elements in that region cannot but cause concern.” As for Africa, Russian President Putin’s announced intent to supply that continent with nuclear power, and China’s already-demonstrated commitment to integrating Africa into the 21st Century—including its education of students, from nations such as Ghana—is “not pleasing to the Queen.” Far more concerning to the British beast-men, though, is the demonstrated ability of other governments to think, as in, for example, what Russian minister Sergei Lavrov said in his letter to the participants in the Asia and Pacific High-Level Conference on Belt Road Cooperation: “Today, the entire world community is experiencing serious upheavals due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Broad multilateral cooperation and a unifying agenda are required for comprehensive overcoming of its consequences and effective post-Covid recovery… I am pleased to say that recently we have substantially advanced in aligning plans of the EAEU (Eurasian Economic Union) development and the Belt and Road construction.” For example, initiatives like China’s deployment of its veteran astronauts to Hong Kong for a university and high-school lecture series promoting national pride in China’s past and future space missions, powered, as 88-year old “spaceman” Qi Faren, the father of the Shenzhou program, said, by “love of the motherland,” that is, pride in the “one Chinese nation.” Against the principle of the power of Reason, your average beast-man, and beast-regime, as imperial Britain discovered when confronted by Ben Franklin’s Industrial Revolution, is paralyzed, conceptually unable to act. In one sense, the idea that the British are assisting in the organizing of the upcoming Schiller Institute conference is true. That is because the world—including the non-existent “material world” believed in by the Manicheans—is actually governed by the “physical arc of the moral universe.” This is the universe of Filippo Brunelleschi’s catenary principle, discovered not to solve a geometric or mathematical problem, but to crown the Cathedral of Florence as a “transubstantial” physical proof and reflection of the Augustinian outlook of “man in the image of God” proposed in “The City of God.” The Duomo was a realization of the work that Augustine and Ambrose had pioneered in music, which had later been advanced in the work on harmonics of Abbe’ Suger and the great cathedral builders of France, and would give birth to machines, inventions, and architectural techniques that Arnulfo di Cambio, the initial designer of the Cathedral project in 1296, had to believe that others as dedicated to the future mission of humanity as he, would be born to complete. The beast-like geo-political mind rejects the existence of that spiritual-mental power, which is what is actually meant by the assertion: “God does not exist.” The divine, and the ability to divine, are the principle of power, which gives the fire and light of reason and discovery to be molded in the hands of humanity. That is why humanity is the greatest known natural resource for the universe itself. That coincidence of opposites—the individual creative mind that changes the living universe through humanity, and the dynamic universe changing the individual through that same humanity—is the subject matter which the conference of Saturday and Sunday, will not only discuss, but celebrate.
|
Vladimir Putin’s recently expressed convergence with the outlook of late 17th/early 18th century Massachusetts republican thinker, scientist and patriot Cotton Mather, on the nature of humanity and government, is of true strategic importance, as we approach the eve of the June 16 Russia- U.S. Summit. When Putin, during a June 8 speech to social workers, stated: “The very values of mercy, love for one’s neighbor, and support for those in need bind and consolidate the entire centuries-old history of our people. They constitute the spiritual basis of the traditional religions of Russia … the fundamental aim of life should be to do good,” Putin echoed the premise, exposition and very words of Cotton Mather’s 1710 Essays To Do Good.The premise of the idea called “the coincidence of opposites,” is that there is a higher domain—what, for example, is sometimes referred to as “the complex domain”—of ideas, not bounded by the banal linearity of Newtonian space-time, or other equally noxious fictions. In that realm of absolute space-time, there is one human culture, and ideas and the individuals responsible for them, exist in what LaRouche referred to as “temporal eternity.” For example, the Mather family—Cotton Mather and his father Increase Mather in particular—was probably the most important of the seminal influences on the early life and later mission of scientist Benjamin Franklin, the intellectual author of the conspiracy called the American Revolution. Vladimir Putin, however, echoed this “Bonifacius outlook” independently, from a Russian, as well as universal perspective, and this perspective is coincident, from the standpoint of temporal eternity, with that of the ancestors and history of the American republic—including the “current history expression” of those ideas in the writings and deeds of Lyndon LaRouche. Yes, there appears, from the present semi-literate braying of the State Department against Russia and China, to be no hope at the summit for a security breakthrough of the quality required to bring the world to safety. That job, however, is what Lyndon LaRouche has required of this organization, with no excuses for what others might fail to do or say.The June 26-27 Schiller Institute conference organizing process, and the June 16-26 period leading up to it, are a point of inflection, and intervention. Followers of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz should regard this “interval of action” as containing the “best possible” potential—not through the upcoming events themselves, but through our mobilization of a worldwide, “no limits to growth” anti-Malthusian alliance. This can allow the people of the world, through their advocating a world health platform, to disrupt the constructive fraud of geopolitics, and declare that only the health and general welfare of the whole world can come first, that humanity comes first, before anything smaller. “One humanity, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all,” is what this movement must pledge its allegiance to. In a higher sense, both the United States and Russia reflect, in this notion of doing good, the impact of Gottfried Leibniz, the founder of physical economy, on both nations—directly and personally on Russia’s Peter the Great, and indirectly on Franklin, through Pennsylvania’s James Logan and Logan’s defense of Leibniz against Newton, as well as John Locke. Leibniz’s long-arc impact on China, both personally and through both the physical-economic writings of Lyndon LaRouche, and the self-conscious adoption of the mission of Leibniz to China of Helga Zepp-LaRouche, has come back to haunt his enemies, and the enemies of humanity in the form of the historic China-Russia “community of principle” collaboration, still missing the United States. The specter of Lyndon LaRouche, and his conceptual ancestors, hangs over the upcoming world proceedings, and not merely because of the 1983 Strategic Defense Initiative. The coronavirus pandemic has crashed the party. The 1974 “economic breakdown and the threat of global pandemics” forecast of LaRouche, the 1995 Ninth Forecast of LaRouche, and LaRouche’s 1999 “Storm Over Asia” presentation, are on the minds of those that may have doubted him, but cannot deny what he said. Even in the United States Congress, we now see the recognition that, yes, the worldwide nature of a pandemic demands that a Franklin Roosevelt-style approach to assisting the world, is the only realistic way to address the continued survival of the United States itself. When Sergey Lavrov says that “I am convinced that we cannot ignore the indisputable fact that the current world system is a sum of accords by the powers of victors in World War II. And Russia will object to those who want to throw the results of this war into doubt,” the real legacy of FDR is being invoked. The post-1945 NATO alliance is rejected, and should be rejected, as a relic of a condition that ended in 1989-91. The principle of world reconstruction of independent, sovereign nation-states, instead of a return to empire, of the 1946 United Nations, as advocated by Franklin Roosevelt and advanced in part by Eleanor Roosevelt, not a post-1991, or post-September 11, 2001 “rules-based system” is the starting point, however imperfect. “We have neither an inferiority complex nor a superiority complex on the global political scene,” Lavrov stated. “However, we are always ready to render assistance to those who need it. This is our historic mission, and it is rooted in centuries of our history.” Russia is prepared in leadership, history and intent, to do good. China has transformed itself in the past half-century to do good, as the improved lives and circumstances of 800 million people in China attest. Like Lyndon LaRouche, Cotton Mather’s more than 450 books and pamphlets were written for those that wished to do good. Today, as that summit process begins, let it be our mission to, by referring to the deeper history of these Leibnizian principles in the practice of statecraft, and particularly as expressed in the documents and books of Lyndon LaRouche, point to the true domain within which the conception expressed by Vladimir Putin, and demonstrated by the Belt and Road Initiative, dwells—the realm of the coincidence of opposites, not geopolitics.
|