Why Hillary Clinton Can’t Tell the Truth

Editor-in-Chief and Founder:

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

Editorial Board: Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. , Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Robert Ingraham, Tony Papert, Gerald Rose, Dennis Small, Jeffrey Steinberg, William Wertz

Co-Editors: Robert Ingraham, Tony Papert

Managing Editor: Nancy Spannaus

Technology: Marsha Freeman

Books: Katherine Notley

Ebooks: Richard Burden

Graphics: Alan Yue

Photos: Stuart Lewis

Circulation Manager: Stanley Ezrol

INTELLIGENCE DIRECTORS

Counterintelligence: Jeffrey Steinberg, Michele Steinberg

Economics: John Hoefle, Marcia Merry Baker, Paul Gallagher

History: Anton Chaitkin

Ibero-America: Dennis Small

Russia and Eastern Europe: Rachel Douglas

United States: Debra Freeman

INTERNATIONAL BUREAUS

Bogotá: Miriam Redondo

Berlin: Rainer Apel

Copenhagen: Tom Gillesberg

Houston: Harley Schlanger

Lima: Sara Madueño

Melbourne: Robert Barwick

Mexico City: Gerardo Castilleja Chávez

New Delhi: Ramtanu Maitra

Paris: Christine Bierre

Stockholm: Ulf Sandmark

United Nations, N.Y.C.: Leni Rubinstein

Washington, D.C.: William Jones

Wiesbaden: Göran Haglund

ON THE WEB

e-mail: eirns@larouchepub.com

www.larouchepub.com

www.executiveintelligencereview.com

www.larouchepub.com/eiw

Webmaster: John Sigerson

Assistant Webmaster: George Hollis

Editor, Arabic-language edition: Hussein Askary

EIR (ISSN 0273-6314) is published weekly

(50 issues), by EIR News Service, Inc.,

P.O. Box 17390, Washington, D.C. 20041-0390.

(703) 777-9451 ext. 415

European Headquarters: E.I.R. GmbH, Postfach Bahnstrasse 9a, D-65205, Wiesbaden, Germany

Tel: 49-611-73650

Homepage: http://www.eirna.com

e-mail: eirna@eirna.com

Director: Georg Neudecker

Montreal, Canada: 514-461-1557

Denmark: EIR - Danmark, Sankt Knuds Vej 11, basement left, DK-1903 Frederiksberg, Denmark. Tel.: +45 35 43 60 40, Fax: +45 35 43 87 57. e-mail: eirdk@hotmail.com.

Mexico City: EIR, Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz 242-2

Col. Agricultura C.P. 11360

Delegación M. Hidalgo, México D.F.

Tel. (5525) 5318-2301

eirmexico@gmail.com

Copyright: ©2016 EIR News Service. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission strictly prohibited.

Canada Post Publication Sales Agreement #40683579

Postmaster: Send all address changes to EIR, P.O. Box 17390, Washington, D.C. 20041-0390.

Signed articles in EIR represent the views of the authors, and not necessarily those of the Editorial Board.

EDITORIAL

Hillary Clinton Will Start World War III

Nov. 1—Throughout her campaign for President of the United States, Hillary Clinton has seized upon every opportunity to demonize Russia and Russian President Vladimir Putin. She has accused him of interfering in the U.S. presidential elections through sophisticated cyber-warfare. She has accused Putin and Russia of plotting an invasion and reconquest of the three Baltic States, which all happen to be members of the NATO Alliance. She has accused Putin and Russia of grabbing the Crimea and of plotting to take over eastern Ukraine, totally ignoring the fact that her longtime protege, Victoria Nuland, oversaw the bloody Maidan coup that installed a Banderist, pro-fascist regime in power in Kiev. She has charged Russia with war crimes and other atrocities in Syria, as the Obama Administration, in which she served, backs jihadists from Al Qaeda and allied foreign terrorist groups in their grab for power in Damascus.

Clinton and her campaign surrogates have even accused Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump of being a KGB dupe or asset, simply on the basis of the GOP nominee’s pledge to negotiate with Russia, and his acknowledgement that Putin is a strong leader—something that Clinton herself seems to be acknowledging, given her larger-than-life accusations that the Russian leader is out to conquer the world.

All of this would be tragi-comic, were it not for the real-world consequences. If Hillary Clinton is elected President on Nov. 8, there is a greatly heightened probability that her actions will rapidly lead to confrontation with Russia—and that will assuredly lead to World War III, a war fought on a global scale with thermonuclear weapons, meaning the end of life on Earth as we know it.

Just take the Syria war as a microcosm of Mrs. Clinton’s policies. During her four-year tenure as Secretary of State under President Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton was a leading advocate of the “regime change” policy first declared by President Obama in early 2011, at the outset of the Syrian war. She pressed for the arming of the Syrian rebels, long before the emergence of the Islamic State, but at a point that the Syrian opposition was already dominated by Salafist fighters, many affiliated with Al Qaeda.

As a Presidential candidate, Clinton has doubled down on those demands, calling for the creation of a “safe zone” inside sovereign Syrian territory. Her leading campaign national security advisers have demanded even more: a no-fly zone and direct attacks on the Syrian Air Force—regardless of the presence of Russian military forces on the ground and in the air over Syria.

This all goes well beyond the range of exaggerated campaign rhetoric. For reasons that only her psychiatrist can know for sure, Hillary Clinton has developed a deep, irrational hatred for Russia, and, particularly, for President Putin.

Given the intensification of fighting in Syria, and given the NATO deployments to the very western edge of Russia—in the Baltics, in Eastern Europe, and along the Black Sea—such an irrational attitude towards the world’s second largest nuclear-weapons state is beyond dangerous. It is a virtual recipe for thermonuclear extinction.

There was a time, back during the 2008 Presidential primaries, before Hillary Clinton walked through the Obama trap door, that she could credibly raise the issue of who can be trusted to receive that “3 AM call” signaling a major national security crisis, that required calm, experienced judgment from a President and commander-in-chief. If ever she had that temperment and leadership skill-set, she has shown, with her flight-forward, McCarthyite venom towards Russia and Putin, that she no longer has it.

EIR Contents

www.larouchepub.com — Volume 43, Number 45, November 4, 2016

2 EDITORIAL

Hillary Clinton Will Start World War III

Cover This Week

I. IN HAMILTON’S FOOTSTEPS

4 SCHILLER INSTITUTE CONFERENCE, OCTOBER 29

LaRouche’s Four Laws for World Recovery and Civilizational Growth

by Helga Zepp-LaRouche

7 SCHILLER INSTITUTE CONFERENCE, OCTOBER 29

Southwest Asia and the New Silk Road

by Hussein Askary

13 The BRICS Summit: A Battlefield Report

by David Christie and Robert Ingraham

II. THE U.S. ECONOMY UNDER OBAMA

21 An Oakland, California Photo Essay: Obama’s America

by Robert Ingraham

31 How Obama Created an Opioid Epidemic

by Jeffrey Steinberg

III. A NEW ERA FOR FRANCE AND GERMANY

33 Our Common Mission Is To Join the New Silk Road Principle

by Jacques Cheminade

37 STATEMENT BY HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE AND JACQUES CHEMINADE AGAINST THE THREAT OF A NEW WORLD WAR

Let Us Build the Eurasian Train for Peace

38 EDITORIAL

Why Hillary Clinton Can’t Tell the Truth

I. In Hamilton’s Footsteps

SCHILLER INSTITUTE CONFERENCE, OCTOBER 29

LaRouche’s Four Laws for World Recovery and Civilizational Growth

Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s address to the Schiller Institute conference, “In the Footsteps of Alexander Hamilton: A Just, New America and a World Governed by Reason,” held in Manhattan, Oct. 29.

Dear friends of the Schiller Institute; Your Excellency Ambassador Farouk:[fn_1]

I’m very happy to be able to speak to you, even if it’s only by video, because what you are trying to do in New York is of strategic importance. The question many people are asking themselves these days is “Where is a sign of hope for the future? Can one be optimistic about the future at all?” One could even ask the question more dramatically, “Is there going to be a future?”; which is not a guaranteed question at this point.

EIRNS/Chris Lewis

Helga Zepp-LaRouche

---------------------------------------------

Many military experts agree that the strategic situation today is more dangerous than during the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis. And if you look at the policies proposed by such people as General Petraeus or Senator McCain, or if Hillary Clinton does what she threatened in the election campaign, if she becomes President, namely to establish a no-fly zone in Syria—you have the immediate possibility for a direct military encounter between the United States and Russia, and the situation could get out of control instantly.

There have been many incidents in the last several months, in which Russian fighter jets almost had encounters with U.S. warships, and one Russian military expert said it quite adequately; he said, “If the fate of mankind depends on the ability of a pilot to avoid an accident, we are really in very, very dangerous waters.”

There is at the same time a full-fledged nuclear armaments race, and at a recent military conference in Beijing, both Russian and Chinese military experts said that the U.S. preparations for a first strike against Russia and China are very much advanced, based on the Prompt Global Strike doctrine. And that therefore, Russia and China have to take appropriate countermeasures.

It is a complete illusion to think you can win a regional nuclear war and that you can take out the second-strike capability of a country like Russia, for example, if you think about the vast number of nuclear missiles distributed around the globe. I think that we are therefore faced,— and in the 1980s, when you had the intermediate-range missile crisis, people were extremely aware of the danger of nuclear war, and you had hundreds of thousands of people in the streets; yet now, when the danger, according to these experts, is more dangerous than during the Cuban Missile Crisis, there is almost no public discussion or awareness of the situation.

But that is maybe now the most acute and most dramatic crisis, but we are looking, really, at a complete civilizational crisis. Because look at the drug epidemic, the drug production coming from Afghanistan, Colombia, and other places, hitting so many people in the United States, driving them toward suicide. You have the unprecedented spread of violence, of police, but also pupils, students killing each other. You have a terrible brutalization of society. Look at the youth culture, which is completely barbarian.

So there is a very widespread cultural pessimism, at least in the trans-Atlantic world, and the situation naturally in Southwest Asia is very, very desperate, and the African situation is equally horrible; so that alone this year, already officially, more than 4,000 people have drowned in the Mediterranean, trying to escape war and famine.

The big question is, is there a way out of this? Is there reason for hope? Can mankind turn this situation around? And I think there is! There are two factors which cause me to say that this situation can be remedied. One is that about three years ago, Chinese President Xi Jinping launched the New Silk Road, which is the largest infrastructure project on this planet. It involves almost $2 trillion equivalent in investment; already 100 nations and organizations are participating; it involves already 4.4 billion people, and it is based on infrastructure building, development, research, and innovation, and it is improving the life for every country which participates.

At the same time, China and the BRICS countries have developed a parallel system of banks, not devoted to casino speculation, but to investment in real industry: The Asian Investment Infrastructure Bank, the New Development Bank, the Silk Road Fund, the Maritime Silk Road Fund. And all of these banks are starting to function and give credit for investment. So that is an initiative which is spreading, and it could be potentially enlarged to reconstruct the countries which have been destroyed by war in Southwest Asia. Already between China and Iran, it has been built; it could be extended into Iraq and Syria; it could help to reconstruct Afghanistan, and the entire region.

kremlin.ru

Vladimir Putin took part in the final session of the Valdai International Discussion Club’s 13th annual meeting, October 27, 2016 in Sochi, this year taking the theme “The Future in Progress: Shaping the World of Tomorrow.”

---------------------------------------------

So this is a realistic option, and just now President Putin has declared at the annual conference of the Valdai Club, that Russia wants to take a big role in the reconstruction of the Middle East, Southwest Asia.[fn_2] And India had earlier said that it also wants to take a big initiative in this. So there are signs of hope.

A Worldwide Renaissance Movement

But the second area has to come from the conscious decision that the world needs a new paradigm, that if we stay within the axioms of the present paradigm of geopolitics and globalization, I don’t think we can solve it. What we need to do, is have a Renaissance, a cultural Renaissance starting from the idea that man is not a beast, and even if many people are behaving in a bestial way these days, man is the only creation, or the only species which is capable of overcoming any limit, of his own mind and of technological problems. Anything mankind wants to tackle, we can do.

That idea that mankind is the creative species, must become the true identity of our species. We have to start with a definition of what are the common aims of that human species. We should look at where we want the future to be. Where do we want this human race to be in 1,000 years, or in 10,000 years? From the standpoint of universal history, that is a very, very small amount of time. And it is very clearly only going to be possible to survive if we move away from the narrow interest of one country or a group of nations, that defines a geopolitical interest against another nation or group of nations. In other words, geopolitics has to stop, once and for all.

We are now at a point where we have to be able to take the viewpoint of the astronauts, the cosmonauts, or the taikonauts, looking from space at our planet. And what they see is a very small, fragile planet, where you don’t see borders, you don’t see wars, you just see one planet which is the place where the one human species lives. And from that viewpoint of these astronauts, you can also at least get a sense of the incredible depth and breadth of our Solar system, the Galaxy, and our Universe at large. And it is also clear that we must understand the laws of our Universe much, much better than we do right now, and that we have to define our activities from the standpoint of finding the proper cohesion of man’s activity with the lawfulness of the Universe, and that that is the only way that our long-term survivability will be guaranteed.

It is what the great German space researcher Krafft Ehricke called the “extraterrestrial imperative,” namely, that it is only when man becomes a space-travelling species that we are forced to bring our activity into cohesion with the actual laws of the universe, because otherwise we cannot survive.

painting by Gerard Terborch

The signing of the Peace of Westphalia (Münster), 1648.

---------------------------------------------

A New Peace of Westphalia

It is also clear that we need a cultural Renaissance, because it’s never technology which does good or bad or evil. It is always man who brings these technologies to a good use or an evil use. And the Schiller Institute is called the “Schiller Institute” because I believe that it is only through the aesthetical education of man, turning his creative ability free, that we can really live as human beings. And the image of how human beings will relate to each other in the future: Will that be the way geniuses such as Max Planck and Albert Einstein communicated? Or Friedrich Schiller and Wilhelm von Humboldt, and Goethe, and other people from the German Classical period?

Nicholas of Cusa—the founder of the modern nation-state and modern science in the Fifteenth Century—enunciated a very important principle: He said that the only reason that nations and cultures are able to communicate, is that each of them produces scientists, artists, musicians, and other people who believe in universal principles, who can communicate with each other because these universal principles are true everywhere—and that’s why they’re called “universal.”

We need to have a new approach for a kind of Peace of Westphalia, for the Middle East, Southwest Asia, in particular, because why was the Peace of Westphalia able to end not only the Thirty Years’ War, but a period of 150 years of religious wars? Because people recognized that if the killing continued, that in the end there would be nobody left to enjoy the outcome.

Henry Kissinger said a couple of years ago that the Peace of Westphalia applies everywhere else, but not for Southwest Asia. I think that is fundamentally false; we have to have a global solution in which the Silk Road becomes a World Land-Bridge, and we must have an economic reconstruction program for the entire Southwest Asia region, and also naturally Africa. And we must combine that with a cultural Renaissance and a Renaissance movement, in which people unite around the reallization that the world has reached a point of barbarism—that if we continue on this path, we may not make it as a species. And therefore, I want to invite all of you to participate in creating a true, worldwide Renaissance movement.

[fn_1]. H.E. Ambassador Ahmed Farouk, Consul General of Egypt in New York.

[fn_2]. Putin spoke and responded to questions at the Oct. 27 final session of the Valdai International Discussion Club’s annual conference, at Sochi: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/53151

SCHILLER INSTITUTE CONFERENCE, OCTOBER 29

Southwest Asia and the New Silk Road

The address of Hussein Askary of the Schiller Institute to the conference in Manhattan, October 29.

Thank you very much for inviting me to this important conference in Manhattan, New York. It’s a great pleasure for me to discuss with you the issue of extending the New Silk Road into Southwest Asia or what is called the Middle East. Mrs. Helga Zepp-LaRouche has emphasized over the past two, three years the importance of extending the economic development perspective and the New Paradigm into this region. As you all are acutely aware, the Southwest Asia region is now a major mess. It is a tragic situation with four simultaneous wars going on, some genocidal wars. Of course this mess is the result of the interventions of the United States and Great Britain, in what is called the regime-changing of this whole area, by using military force to change governments and redraw the borders of countries. It is being called “creative chaos.”

Hussein Askary

---------------------------------------------

Our mission is not to comment on the war or be part of the war. Our mission in the Schiller Institute, and Executive Intelligence Review, and, I guess, every one of you, is to work for peace. But what kind of peace do we want to have? As you may all know, with the Israeli-Palestinian Oslo peace process starting in the early 1990s, Mr. LaRouche issued a very strong warning, saying that without making economic development the key issue, there would be no peace in this region. To establish peace, you must give people hope for the future, hope that their children and grandchildren will have a better future, will have better living conditions than those of the people living today. And that is the real issue and the real basis for any durable peace.

Necessary Interventions

Of course, there are certain developments that require sometimes military intervention, such as what happened in Syria in September 2015, when Russian President Vladimir Putin intervened into Syria to put an end to the expanding and globally expanding terrorism which started from this chaotic situation in Southwest Asia, and which has threatened not only the countries in the region—causing the death of millions of people—but also extending to Europe, the United States, and other parts of the world. So with that intervention, if it is allowed to continue, in collaboration with other forces in the region, there is a possibility to put an end to the terrorism of al-Qaeda and ISIL and the rest. But it’s because of the obstruction of these efforts by the United States, Britain, NATO—and their allies in the region, such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Israel, and Turkey—that this situation might lead to global conflict, a world war. That’s no exaggeration in today’s world.

The other important intervention—which takes us into the idea of what is the solution to this—is the intervention by President Xi Jinping of China in January 2016, when he visited Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, nations obviously on different sides of this conflict. He invited them to participate in the New Silk Road—the Silk Road Economic Belt and the Maritime Silk Road—with the help of China. It was an offer of Chinese assistance in building infrastructure, power plants, railways, and so on, as a way of decreasing tensions and building better relations among nations. There could be no better proposal and solution than that.

FIGURE 1

The World Land-Bridge Network—Key Links and Corridors

*Committed, underway or completed.

LINKS

1:*Great Inter-Oceanic Canal, Nicaragua   2:Bering Strait Tunnel   3:Sakhalin Island-Mainland (Russia) Connection   4:Sakhalin-Hokkaido Tunnel   5:*Seikan Tunnel   6:Japan-Korea Undersea Tunnel   7:*Bohai Tunnel   8:Strait of Malacca Bridge   9:Sunda Strait Bridge   10:Isthmus of Kra Canal   11:*Bosporus Strait Rail Tunnel   12:*Suez Canal Expansion   13:Italy-Tunisia Link   14:Strait of Gibraltar Tunnel   15:*English Channel Tunnel   16:*Scandinavian-Continental Links

CORRIDORS

A:*Peru-Brazil Transcontinental Railway   B:Darien Gap Inter-American Railway   C:Alaska-Canada-Lower 48 Rail Line   D:The Bering Strait Connector   E:Trans-Siberian Corridors   F:*Silk Road Economic Belt   G:*International North-South Transport Corridor   H:*Cross Africa Rail Lines   I:Australia Ring Railway   J:*Maritime Silk Road   K:*Northern Sea Route

---------------------------------------------

You are all familiar with this [Figure 1], the New Silk Road, but the extension of the New Silk Road into a World Land-Bridge, connecting all continents and nations. If you look at the region identified as Southwest Asia, it’s right at the east-west, south-north crossroads of the larger region. And it’s also physically, geographically in the center. But metaphorically, politically, it’s also between two paradigms—between the paradigm of the BRICS nations and the idea of New Silk Road economic development and credit for infrastructure development, and the other paradigm, the imperialist paradigm, led by the United States, Britain, and the European Union. These countries are right in between these two paradigms. Which direction these nations will go, will really determine the future of this region and also the world.

The Great Potential of Southwest Asia

Mr. LaRouche was in Abu Dhabi in 2002 [Figure 2]. That was one year before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. He told the International Conference on Oil and Gas in World Politics that these nations should use their position as a crossroads of the world [Figure 3] to use their geographical location between the continents as an advantage for building new industries. He said that they should not export their oil and gas resources as raw materials, but rather should use them as industrial materials for petrochemical industries, plastics, and so on, which would give each barrel of oil many times the value that it would have as an export of raw oil.

FIGURE 2

---------------------------------------------

FIGURE 3

---------------------------------------------

This crossroads of the world, which Mr. LaRouche identified, is one of the world’s most interesting regions, not only because of all the conflicts, but because—if these conflicts can be turned into peaceful processes—there are enormous advantages for these countries. This zone is not limited to Arab and Muslim countries—there are others. Within this circle—right between Africa, Asia, and Europe—is two-thirds of the world’s reserves of oil and gas; it’s located right on the Silk Road Economic Belt, and the Maritime Silk Road passes through this region, making transportation costs very, very low. But also, most importantly, these nations are, many of them are ancient civilizations and cultures.

But there are also 450 million people living in this region and most of them are below the age of 30, which means that the nations of this region have the whole potential of the future right before them. And the population of this region may double in the next 20 to 30 years, which will bring the number to 1 billion people living actually in a very wealthy area of the world.

Development Corridors, Not Just Routes

Right now, of course, all of the advantages are turned into disadvantages because of geopolitics and because of the regime-change policies. But this region could become one of the most important growth regions in the world, not only for the needs in the region for infrastructure, healthcare, education, modern technology, power production—all these things have been lacking for the last 30 years. But also, of course, the region could become a major center for industrialization. We have in Egypt, for example, the development of the New Suez Canal industrial zone, which could become a feeder for development in other parts of the region, in Africa for example, which Egypt could spearhead in the coming two to three decades.

So this zone, this area, is one of the areas in the world with the greatest growth potential. What it needs—if you have looked at the World Land-Bridge map—is mostly the infrastructure to connect Asia to Europe and to Africa.

We have several connection routes—through Iran, through Iraq, Turkey, into Europe; but also through Iraq, Syria, and the Eastern Mediterranean region, into Egypt. We also have the route across the Gulf from Iran into Oman, into Yemen—Yemen is now experiencing a horrible war, waged by Saudi Arabia and allies—into Djibouti and East Africa. All these projects are feasible, as shown by many studies. But these projects are not simply railways and trade routes. They will be development corridors, as Mr. Lyndon LaRouche and associates have identified what development corridors are: to bring materials, energy, and technologies into regions which are less developed.

How Do You Finance It?

There are many different, related projects. We have, as I said, the Suez Canal Project, which brings the new Silk Road into Africa. We have the Africa Pass project [Figure 4], which will connect the Mediterranean to the landlocked regions in the Great Lakes region of East Africa. Here China is making very interesting initiatives [Figure 5] to connect these landlocked nations, including Ethiopia, South Sudan, Uganda, Rwanda, and Burundi, to the world economy and bring modern technologies to develop these regions. The lack of infrastructure is one of the greatest obstacles to development in these regions. China—and also India and Japan—but China is heading the whole move to develop infrastructure, transport, water, and power in these regions, which will bring these nations into a completely new economic reality in one or two decades.

FIGURE 4

Africa Pass Project

---------------------------------------------

FIGURE 5

New East Africa Railway

---------------------------------------------

The big issue which will come—and we have been confronting this—is the question of financing. How do you finance? How do nations that have just come out of war, or have had a destructive economic policy for two or three decades, come out and finance these massive infrastructure projects, which, of course, will cost tens or maybe hundreds of billions of dollars?

As you all know from the campaigns of the LaRouche PAC and the Schiller Institute, what we are calling for is not simply the old monetarist system, but what we call a national credit system, or a system of credit for development. This is in complete contrast with what people know about to how to finance infrastructure.

The Institutional Economic Hitmen

The nations in the region have been completely devastated by the policies of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank, especially the less privileged countries. They have been told that, since they don’t have enough financial resources, they should not opt to build major infrastructure projects; they should simply cut costs and use austerity policies to reduce the deficits in their government budgets—and also to reduce the population, as in the case of Egypt. They have been getting that advice all the time. Of course this will not only impoverish these countries; they will be completely destroyed, because a nation’s legitimacy to exist lies in its capability to envision how to provide for its people and build a better future for the coming generations.

Each nation has the right to produce its own credit for whatever is necessary to produce or build for its own population. We have had interesting cases: For example in Egypt, when President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi had the vision of doubling the Suez Canal, because you had traffic going only in one direction at a time, which created a big bottleneck at this very important international trade canal.

So the idea was to double the canal, and that would require, of course, at least $8 billion, but it would take three years. And President el-Sisi said no, our nation needs to hasten this process, so we do it in one year. And, since the IMF and the international financial markets are already bankrupt and are not interesting in financing this kind of project, President el-Sisi said: Well, we will go to the Egyptian people. The Suez Canal Authority called on the people of Egypt to buy certificates to finance the building of the canal. And you had $8 billion raised in less than two weeks, by Egyptian people taking their savings and buying Suez Canal certificates. This is three times more than the amount a loan which Egypt had been negotiating for many, many years from the IMF and still hadn’t gotten it.

Where Does Credit Come From?

So in each nation you have the credit capabilities, you have the financial capabilities, but these are not invested in the right way, because you don’t have the vision. Building the Suez Canal is such a vision. But that is not enough, because you cannot simply build one project and expect a financial return from that project. What you need is to have a national development program, and not only $8 billion, for in Egypt actually, within Egypt itself you can raise $100 billion. And instead of using that kind of money to pay cash for every project, you can also issue credit.

Now if you have powerful nations, wealthy nations, they don’t have to pay everything in cash. They issue government bonds, they can get credit very cheap, like China today, they can get credit. China is the world’s biggest creditor; but since it has the capability to finance its own debt and has a growing economy, it has a capability of getting credit, too. But China is now giving credit to other nations to develop.

So, when you have the vision, when you have the determination and the possibility, for example, of building a national development bank based on internal credit generation, you will get support and credibility from other nations. For example, if you need to import machines from other countries, more industrialized countries, you could get export credits from the government of that country, through its own companies, who will provide you with the machines. You don’t have to pay for these machines. This is what happened with the Marshall Plan between the United States and Europe. You can pay back under a long-term loan agreement when your development project is productive and paying for itself.

Nations in the region are told that the only way you can finance major infrastructure projects is by making your country attractive to foreign investors. We all know that most investors in Europe, the United States, and Japan have deep, deep economic problems, and they are not interested in financing infrastructure projects, so that will never happen. Many nations now are making themselves attractive to investors; they are competing against each other to attract investors, and the investors are not coming.

The Model that Works

What is needed is what China is doing—realizing the visions that have existed for many, many years, for infrastructure, including national, regional, and transcontinental projects that have been on the drawing boards for many years. The only thing that is needed is an agreement of national support that project, and of course you can get the support of the exporting countries, like China. It is investing now, with no payment involved—no money involved—in development projects in Ethiopia, Kenya and elsewhere in East Africa, and Nigeria, where it has long-term credit agreements, or it can be paid back in oil or other commodities. So these nations don’t have to spend all of their liquidity in paying for these projects. They can pay back when these projects are mature and they are productive; and that’s the way to pay back the credit you get.

So we have to stop the war and launch an industrialization process in Southwest Asia and Africa, but based on a credit system, not on the old monetarist system. The old system does not have the credit, or the financial capability, or the desire to build these projects for development. But there is a new paradigm, in which China and the other BRICS nations are leading a process of economic development, reducing poverty, and using scientific and technological innovation to bring nations above the poverty level and into a completely new era.

So that is the major challenge for the world today and for us as citizens—to reverse a policy which has been very, very destructive. If you look at Africa the way Europe and the United States have looked at Africa, Africa is a big burden. Africa is a poor continent, the countries are poor, and most of them are involved in civil wars or regional wars. And it looks like a hopeless case, but we can of course give aid here and there, and our raw materials companies, mining companies, can still continue working there.

Lands of Opportunity

But the way to look at it is that every poor country in Africa and Southwest Asia is actually an opportunity. What makes these nations creditworthy is all the needs they have, all the gaps they have in their own development, in production of food, production of infrastructure. Their mineral resources are not utilized. China sees this as an opportunity. It’s not a burden to work with Africa. And guess who else thought that way? It was your President, the President of the United States, Franklin Roosevelt, in his quarrel with Prime Minister Winston Churchill of the British Empire. During World War II, Roosevelt told Churchill, After this war, we will not fight to save your empire, or the French empire, or the Belgian empire. The African nations will become independent nations and they will develop exactly as we developed.

Now, you suck the blood of Africans, and what do you get? You get pennies! But if you develop these nations the way we developed the United States after the Great Depression, with building infrastructure, water projects, sanitation, healthcare, then you will gain much, much more from these countries by having fair trade with them than simply looting them.

So the idea of the win-win strategy is actually what the United States had, under Roosevelt’s vision for the world after World War II. It is time now to go back to that vision. Fortunately, more than half of the world population—in the BRICS nations and their allies—is open to this policy, what China’s President, Xi Jinping, has called the win-win policy.

Europe can choose between continuing its existing policy, getting 1 million refugees every year from Africa, or it can contribute to developing Africa the way China is developing Africa, and it could then get 10 million African tourists visiting Europe every year.

So, you have to look at it in this way: If you help your neighbor, you will benefit from that yourself. That is exactly what was stated in the Peace of Westphalia, which ended the horrible religious wars in Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries. This is exactly what the parties to the peace agreement said, that each nation has to work for the benefit of the other. I think the Schiller Institute is the leading organization in the world in making that vision, that idea, a reality for today and for tomorrow.

Visit WorldLandBridge.com

---------------------------------------------

The BRICS Summit:

A Battlefield Report

by David Christie and Robert Ingraham

Oct. 29—The 8th BRICS Summit,[fn_1] which was held October 15-16 in Goa, India, took place under what can only be described as war-time conditions. The final Summit declaration, issued at the conclusion of the discussions, itself identified the character of the current environment, stating that, “Geopolitical conflicts, terrorism, refugee flows, illicit financial flows and the outcome of the UK referendum have further added to the uncertainty in the global economy.” In his concluding remarks, Chinese President Xi Jinping also pointed to the dangerous problems stemming from the collapse of the trans-Atlantic financial system, describing the present situation as “treacherous.”

Photo: China News Service

Chinese President Xi Jinping in a G20 address announced a new approach driven by innovation in science and technology to the benefit of all.

---------------------------------------------

In reality, the “treacherous” nature of present world events goes beyond the financial and economic minefield identified by the BRICS leadership. As Russian President Vladimir Putin stated in his October 27 speech to the Valdai Discussion Club,[fn_2] the Obama Administration, together with the elites of London and Wall Street, is now moving openly toward thermonuclear brinkmanship with Russia most specifically, but also with China. This last week alone has seen a dramatic escalation of military support for the terrorists in Syria by the Obama Administration, as well as continued reiterations by Hillary Clinton of her demand for the imposition of a “no-fly” zone in Syria that may well lead to direct U.S.- Russia military conflict.

kremlin.ru

Vladimir Putin at the Valdai International Discussion Club, October 27, 2016.

---------------------------------------------

Thus, it is imperative for the reader to recognize that it is not permissible to discuss the BRICS process as if it existed in an isolated “fishbowl,” nor to examine its proceedings merely from the standpoint of simple global “economic reform.” What is at stake, what is being played out, is the imminent question of the very survival of the nations and people of the world.

China’s Vision

The accomplishments of the Goa Summit were impressive. In almost all respects the discussions and agreements which took place there continued along the positive path earlier identified by both Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin at the G20 Summit, held in Hangzhou, China on September 4. At that G20 Summit, Xi Jinping had issued a clarion call for a new economic order to replace the domination of the collapsing and dying trans-Atlantic financial system, and he announced that a new orientation toward scientific and industrial “innovation” must replace the failed system of the trans-Atlantic conception of monetarism. Xi stated:

We can no longer rely on fiscal and monetary policy alone to deal with the crisis. We envision an all-dimensional, multi-tiered and wide-ranging approach to innovation which is driven by innovation in science and technology, but goes beyond it to cover development philosophy, institutional mechanisms and business models, so that the benefits of innovation will be shared by all.

To get a sense of what Xi Jinping means by innovation, one must look no further than the Chinese space program, and its interrelated commitment to fusion power, which is clearly resonant with the concepts laid out in the “Four Laws”[fn_3] paper by Lyndon LaRouche. From the G20 Summit in Hangzhou, to the BRICS Summit in Goa, India, this rejection of monetarism and a commitment to innovation has been echoed as a commitment to a new world order based on scientific and technological growth. The final Goa Resolution reads, in part,

We commend China for the successful hosting of the 11th G20 Leaders’ Summit in Hangzhou and its focus on innovation, structural reform and development as drivers of medium and long term economic growth. We recognize the role of the G20 as the premier forum for international and financial cooperation and emphasize the importance of the implementation of the outcomes of G20 Hangzhou Summit, that we believe will foster strong, sustainable, balanced and inclusive growth and will contribute to improved global economic governance and enhance the role of developing countries.

Monetary policy alone, though, cannot lead to balanced and sustainable growth.

From Hangzhou to Goa

Since the G20 Summit in Hangzhou to the BRICS Summit in Goa, there has been a steady march towards a new global economy based on the principled approach outlined by Xi Jinping in Hangzhou. Earlier this year at the G7 Summit in Japan, Shinzo Abe had already expressed this similar sentiment when he said that monetary policy alone cannot lead to a strong, sustainable, and balanced growth. Abe had also warned of “a risk of the global economy falling into crisis if appropriate policy responses are not made,” which was referred to as a “Lehman shock,” recalling the collapse of 2008. Days before the G20 Hangzhou Summit, Abe attended the Eastern Economic Forum, where he and Putin made further commitments to the joint development of the Far East, especially Siberia, indicating that Japan may shift to the collaborative approach in Eurasia around the Silk Road and related projects, rather than be caught in the middle of British geopolitical manipulations that could lead to nuclear war. Following the G20 Summit, the ASEAN nations met, and in the context of the release of The Hague ruling on the South China Sea dispute between China and the Philippines, made a commitment to resolve their issues without outside manipulation, through mutual development around the Silk Road. Philippine President Duterte’s recent remarks indicate a clear and resolute shift on the part of the Philippines, also seen in his recent trip to Japan.

In addition to the tectonic changes in policy orientation emanating from both the Philippines and Japan, Turkey has also shifted towards the orientation of the New Silk Road. At the G20 Summit in Hangzhou, Turkish President Erdogan described the New Silk Road as starting in China and ending in the United Kingdom, referring to Turkey’s megaprojects, such as the subsea tunnel project and the Yavuz Sultan Selim Bridge, Istanbul’s third bridge over the Bosporus, as indicators of future megaprojects which include new railway systems and various other megaprojects in line with China’s Silk Road policy. Turkey is also working with Russia and Azerbaijan on the North South Corridor, which will bring together Russia, Azerbaijan, Turkey and Iran, and will ultimately fold into China’s One Belt, One Road initiative.

Perhaps the most striking feature of the G20 Summit in Hangzhou was the declaration by Xi Jinping that the success of China is a model for the world. Prior to the G-20 Summit, China had issued a call for the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) to evaluate the status of global financial derivatives, which of course were shown to be in abysmal shape, a contagion spreading among the international banks. In this context, Xi Jinping issued an international proposal for a new financial architecture, to facilitate the innovation economy, most clearly seen with China’s commitment to the New Silk Road, fusion research, and its space program. President Xi also very clearly asserted that the method by which China has pulled 800 million of its people out of poverty is both knowable and replicable.

None of this has gone unnoticed in London and Washington, and in an article which appeared in Consortium News, the British specialist Alastair Crooke astutely noted,

What was different was that it was distinctly China’s G-20. China did not simply host the G-20 for America to sweep in, give its leadership and stamp to proceedings, and then to fly off. China, at this G-20, made it very plain that it was leading, and to make it clearer still, it made sure that the world should see that the guest of honor was the Russian president, and not the American president (who regrettably experienced some technical difficulties that marred his ceremonial arrival). There was a deeper purpose here: to underline strategic coordination with Russia in the context of the display of the Chinese leadership.[fn_4]

Vladimir Putin also asserted this shift in his press conference after the G-20, stating that while the “G-20 does not make legally binding decisions, the value of such discussions and such documents lies elsewhere. Their value is that they set a trend.” Putin continued, noting that “the Chinese presidency has chosen ensuring sustainable long-term growth through innovation as the key topic,” and that if other nations move in a different direction than the “trend,” then they act “contrary to the wish of the global community and violate, as it were, generally accepted norms, even if they are not obligatory. These trends are very important. So there is a certain value in this and it is quite significant.”

These statements illustrate that it is now Russia and China who are setting the trend, which does not sit well with either Obama or his British masters.

PIB, India

Russian President Putin, Indian Prime Minister Modi, and Chinese President Xi with BIMSTEC leaders at the BRICS Summit in Goa, India.

---------------------------------------------

At Goa

In his statements from the BRICS Summit in Goa, Xi Jinping identified the severe problems stemming from the global instability of the trans-Atlantic financial system, but he also declared that the BRICS nations would collaborate on a basis of mutual benefit, around projects designed to create tangible economic development. He noted that the global economy is in the midst of a “treacherous recovery,” while adding that despite these difficulties, “the potential and strength of the BRICS countries in terms of resources, market and labor force is unchanged,” and that the BRICS continues to pursue a positive future. Xi Jinping then affirmed that the BRICS countries indeed have much of which to be proud: “The past decade has seen BRICS partnerships expanding with win-win results. We need to deepen our partnerships. We BRICS countries are good friends, brothers and partners that treat each other with sincerity.”

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi seconded that sentiment, addressing the BRICS Business Council, saying, “I think I speak for all when I say that through a common vision and collective action, we will create and sustain deeper bonds among BRICS nations, develop our economies and secure our societies. While our achievements have been substantial, we need to sustain the positive direction and strong momentum of intra-BRICS engagement.”

At the same Business Council meeting, Russian President Vladimir Putin, emphasizing the importance of establishing contacts and cooperation between the Business Council and the NDB,[fn_5] said, “We hope to see relevant recommendations from the business community on expanding project activity with the Bank.” Putin noted that the first BRICS Trade Fair held in New Delhi Oct. 12-14 with Business Council support, showed “our countries’ real potential for developing economic cooperation and expanding our work together in industry and technology.” Russia will continue efforts to facilitate economic rapprochement among BRICS countries and to lay the groundwork for launching new business projects, he said.

In addition to the positive assertion of economic development uniting nations in mutual benefit through the New Development Bank, the BRICS nations also discussed an expanded role in dealing with issues of the global strategic situation. In addition to expanding the outreach of the BRICS by inviting the leaders of the BIMSTEC[fn_6] member countries (comprising Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Myanmar, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Thailand), the BRICS also made clear their intent to intervene into the situation in the Middle East and Northern Africa, particularly the situation in Syria, as the Goa declaration states:

We are deeply concerned about the situation in the Middle East and North Africa. We support all efforts for finding ways to the settlement of the crises in accordance with international law and in conformity with the principles of independence, territorial integrity and sovereignty of the countries of the region. On Syria, we call upon all parties involved to work for a comprehensive and peaceful resolution of the conflict taking into account the legitimate aspirations of the people of Syria, through inclusive national dialogue and a Syrian-led political process based on Geneva Communique of 30 June 2012 and in pursuance of the UN Security Council Resolution 2254 and 2268 for their full implementation, while continuing the relentless pursuit against terrorist groups so designated by the UN Security Council including ISIL, Jabhat al-Nusra and other terrorist organizations designated by the UN Security Council.

It has not been lost on Barack Obama and his British masters that their influence is waning—in the Middle East, Northern Africa and elsewhere, nor that it is now Vladimir Putin who is playing such a decisive role in the former geopolitical sandbox of the British Empire. Reportedly, Putin has now also been invited to play a role in the Israeli Palestinian peace process. Meanwhile, BRICS nations India and China have also been very active in the region; note particularly the role of China in reaching agreements with Middle Eastern nations, even including the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, for economic development projects integrated into the New Silk Road.

EIRNS

Guyanese Foreign Minister Fred Wills, a friend of Lyndon and Helga LaRouche, called for new international development banks at the UN in 1976.

---------------------------------------------

Casus Belli for London

It is important to understand that the BRICS is not simply a collection of nations. Representing a “Community of Principle,” its potential goes far beyond the realm of Realpolitik. Lyndon LaRouche has outlined the essence of that principle in his paper entitled “The Four Laws to Save the U.S.A. Now! Not an Option: An Immediate Necessity,”[fn_7] and he has identified that his Four Laws are essentially a distillation of the four seminal works of Alexander Hamilton that were delivered to the United States Congress: on Public Credit, the Subject of Manufactures, the National Bank, and the Constitutionality of the National Bank. In those four works, Hamilton organized the nation to establish itself on the principles of natural law and renounce the bestiality of the British imperial system that had slavery at its core—whether it was chattel slavery that imposed literal shackles, or the British imperial system of “free trade” and monetarism that condemned colonies and foreign nations to backwardness and servitude.

While the expanding role of the BRICS in international affairs is important, their action in asserting the primacy of innovation over the failed monetarist outlook of the trans-Atlantic system is even more important. The BRICS Declaration also refers to the importance of “structural reforms,” which, for the BRICS, takes on a far different meaning than it does in the Orwellian language of the International Monetary Fund or other agencies of the British Empire. Wall Street and London-dictated “structural reforms” almost always demand privatization, deregulation, and breaking down trade barriers or protectionist measures, so that the population and governments can be looted—whereas in the BRICS Goa declaration, they refer to “industrial development as a core pillar of structural transformation.” That declaration states:

Monetary policy alone, though, cannot lead to balanced and sustainable growth. We, in this regard, underscore the essential role of structural reforms. We emphasize that our fiscal policies are equally important to support our common growth objectives. We also take note that the spillover effects of certain policy measures in some systemically important advanced economies can have adverse impact on growth prospects of emerging economies.

We recognize that innovation is a key driver for mid- and long-term growth and sustainable development. We stress the importance of industrialization and measures that promote industrial development as a core pillar of structural transformation.

EIRNS/Stuart Lewis

Indira Gandhi, another friend of the LaRouches, was killed by the British in 1984.

---------------------------------------------

The Empire’s Counterattack

The British Empire has specifically targeted the scientific and technological foundation of the innovation based economy, as well as the industrial growth and growth of infrastructure. It has unleashed hysterical psychological warfare operations against these concepts, lying that this type of growth is not sustainable or even desirable. This is clearly evident in two recent pieces by the propaganda outlets of the British Empire: “China rethinks developing world largesse as deals sour—An end to risky bets on the ‘red elephants’ of Beijing’s global financial diplomacy?” from the Financial Times, and “Does Infrastructure Investment Lead to Economic Growth or Economic Fragility? Evidence from China,” from the Oxford Review of Economic Policy.

According to the Financial Times article, China’s huge investments around the world, “in some of the most unstable countries in Latin America, Africa and Asia,” are now turning sour, and its “sources” in China assure them that Beijing is now ready to dump the whole project! Yet, in the course of their screed, the Financial Times writers are forced to admit that the China Development Bank and the Ex-Im Bank of China together have about $700 billion in overseas development lending, which is fairly equivalent to the development lending of the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, European Investment Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the African Development Bank—combined! China is also clearly taking a leading role in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and the BRICS’ New Development Bank (NDB).

Similarly in the Oxford Review of Economic Policy piece, one of the authors, Dr. Atif Ansar, argues that, “From our sample, the evidence suggests that for over half of the infrastructure investments in China made in the last three decades, the costs are larger than the benefits they generate, which means the projects destroy economic value instead of generating it. . . Unless China shifts to fewer and higher-quality infrastructure investments, the country is headed for an infrastructure-led national financial and economic crisis, which is likely to spread to the international economy.”

The intended target of this article is not hidden: the Oxford University review study concludes, “that a massive infrastructure investment program is not a viable development strategy for other developing countries such as Pakistan, Nigeria or Brazil, which may use China as their model for economic development.” Quoting from the report: “It is a myth that China grew thanks largely to heavy infrastructure investment. It grew due to bold economic liberalization and institutional reforms, and this growth is now threatened by over-investment in low-grade infrastructure. The lesson for other markets is that policy makers should place their attention on software and deep institutional reforms, and exercise far greater caution in diverting scarce resources to large-scale physical infrastructure projects.”

A splash of cold water is enough to recognize that the assertions made in these articles are nothing other than the desperate flailings of hysterical losers who are now about to lose everything when the insolvent trans-Atlantic banking system comes crashing down, an imminent certainty which might be sparked by almost anything, from the likely fall of Deutsche Bank, to the implosion of the Italian banking system, or the collapse of almost any bank in Wall Street or London for that matter.

Two Opposite Outlooks

The truth of these matters was actually revealed in the Financial Times article, in a section which quoted from a top unnamed Chinese official. According to the article, when the official was asked about the “rate of return” on Chinese investments, he stated,

We assess risk differently than western agencies because we look at the potential for development of a country. They look backwards, we look forwards. We know that maybe all they need is infrastructure and . . . their economy will grow.

This short statement has extraordinary implications, but the simple truth expressed therein seems lost on the mavens of London and Wall Street. If your nation is considering creating a future potential through the growth associated with basic economic infrastructure, in collaboration with other nations, then long term investment is not seen as “risk.” This disparate view of “risk” has led the BRICS to discuss setting up their own rating agency. The BRICS Goa declaration said,

We welcome experts exploring the possibility of setting up an independent BRICS Rating Agency based on market-oriented principles, in order to further strengthen the global governance architecture.

We believe that BRICS institution-building is critical to our shared vision of transforming the global financial architecture to one based on the principles of fairness and equity.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi also said in a statement at the conclusion of the BRICS Summit that, “In order to further bridge the gap in the global financial architecture, we agreed to fast track the setting up of a BRICS Rating Agency.”

Although unnamed in the above, or in any of the other documents from the Goa summit, what is actually being discussed here is Alexander Hamilton’s concept of Public Credit, precisely the approach which created the American Republic, and the solution put forward by Lyndon LaRouche to the current crisis.

The British Empire knows that what Xi Jinping stated with clarity and force at the G20 Summit in Hangzhou sounds its death knell. In order to crush this concept from becoming hegemonic in the BRICS nations and beyond, it is trying to both destroy the nations involved and pit them against each other, as well as destroy the idea that is uniting them, with psychological warfare techniques. The BRICS nations have all been specifically challenged with hybrid warfare in all its forms—from an attempted impeachment in South Africa, to a coup d’etat through impeachment in Brazil, to Russia bearing the brunt of the war assault in both Syria and Ukraine, to the threatening of China from Obama’s Asia Pivot. The British have even torn open scar tissue in Kashmir in an attempt to pit India against China. In addition to the assault on the nations of the BRICS, the British have also launched a massive psychological warfare campaign to convince the world of the impenetrability of the trans-Atlantic system—and that rather, it is China and the BRICS that are crumbling due to their overextension on infrastructure and foreign investments.

U.S, National Archives

Depiction of a brief skirmish at Lexington, Massachusetts, April 19, 1775.

---------------------------------------------

This is a global war. It is a war which superficially appears to be between two systems, but in reality is between two diametrically opposed Principles, two antagonistic concepts of humanity’s future. The conceptual grasp of that new Principle offered by the BRICS process—a Principle fully coherent with the Hamiltonian origins of the American Republic—by a growing chorus of leaders, will be the foundation for destroying the British Empire forever. We are now at the edge of that conceptual shift, if we have the courage to provide the intellectual and moral leadership to bring down the British Empire and create that New Paradigm.

[fn_1]. Brazil-Russia-India-China-South Africa

[fn_2]. http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/53151

[fn_3]. http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2014/4124four_laws.html

[fn_4]. “China and Russia Press Ahead, Together,” Consortium News, Sept. 13, 2016: https://consortiumnews.com/2016/09/13/china-and-russia-press-ahead-together/

[fn_5]. The New Development Bank of the BRICS.

[fn_6]. The Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation.

[fn_7]. http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2014/4124four_laws.html

Subscribe to EIR Daily Alert Service

II. The U.S. Economy Under Obama

An Oakland, California

Photo Essay: Obama’s America

by Robert Ingraham^1

Oct. 28—President Barack Obama has, on more than one occasion, likened his accomplishments in the field of economic policy to Franklin Roosevelt, and, even more frequently, has crowed about the “unprecedented” success of his various economic and banking initiatives.[fn_1]

Much of what Obama points to, in declaring his “accomplishments,” rests in a nationwide unemployment rate of five percent, a banking system which has held together since the 2008 crisis, and rapid growth in the areas of the “green economy,” computer and internet related enterprises, and other loosely related “information” services.

The unemployment figures, of course, are a complete fraud, as we have now reached a point where more then 100 million Americans are now officially declared by the U.S. government to be “not in the labor force,” i.e., not counted at all in unemployment statistics. Similarly, claims of a “financial recovery” are absurd. In the six years since the passage of the Obama-supported Dodd-Frank legislation, the nation’s banking institutions have all plunged head-long toward insolvency, with derivative and other speculative debts skyrocketing.

Perhaps it is the area of the “green” and “service” economy which best represents Obama’s true legacy to the American People. And this is where the City of Oakland comes in.

Those readers of an older age might equate Oakland with the 1960s version of Huey Newton and the Black Panther Party, or, perhaps it is the 1990s version of Oakland as the crack cocaine capital of America which might come to mind.

It might come as a huge shock to some readers to know that Oakland—yes, the Oakland of 2016—is now widely touted as a premier success story of the “new” economy of Barack Obama.

Since 2008, Oakland has emerged as a national hub for the new information economy, with dozens of what are euphemistically called “high-tech” firms either relocating there or starting up there. Ask.com, Pandora Media, BrightSource Energy, Sungevity, iParadigms, First Solar, Lucid Design Group and Livescribe are among those companies that have large operations in Oakland, all of which have headquarters in the city except for First Solar. The glorified gypsy cab company known as Uber is now building its international headquarters on Broadway, in the center of the city. The website Wealth Management now ranks Oakland as fifth in the country on a list of top cities for tech engineers.

The cultural mavens of America have now declared Oakland to be a “Destination City.” The New York Times ranked Oakland as Number Five in its list of “45 Places To Go.” The real estate website Estately has declared Oakland to be a major culinary capital, and others have lauded the city’s new “art scene” and night-life. Everywhere you turn, Oakland is being lauded.

Tens of thousands of, mostly white, young professionals have moved to Oakland, most with their dogs. Bicycle lanes are being painted everywhere. Bistros and beer-houses are springing up. Street festivals in gentrified neighborhoods are becoming a regular occurrence. It seems that Oakland has become the paradise of Obama’s new economy.

Or has it?

[fn_1]. All photographs in this essay were taken by the author, during the month of October 2016.

II. The U.S. Economy Under Obama

Chinatown

---------------------------------------------

Poverty

The median household income in Oakland is $49,721.

According to government figures, 19.4% of Oakland residents live in poverty. However, this figure is based on an official poverty line of $24,230 for a family of four, a ridiculously low figure, and as phony as the official unemployment rate.

The figures presented below on housing costs will demonstrate that a far higher percentage of Oaklanders live in poverty than anyone in government will admit.

Between 2008 and 2014, the median income for blacks in Oakland dropped by 17%, the median income for Asians dropped by 2%, and the median income for Hispanics dropped by 18%. Together, these three groups make up 65% of Oakland’s population.

Between 2002 and 2012, the number of children and youth in Oakland has declined 16.7 percent.

Downtown

---------------------------------------------

Housing & Rentals

As stated above, the median income for an Oakland household is $49,721, but the median income for a household which rents is $34,195.

As of September 2016, the average apartment rent within the city of Oakland, CA is $2,760.

One bedroom apartments in Oakland rent for $2,409 a month on average and two bedroom apartments average $3,096.

Thus a one bedroom apartment is $28,908 per year, or 85% or more of the yearly income of half of those who rent. A two bedroom apartment is 109% of their yearly income. Just in rent alone.

Oakland now ranks fourth, nationwide, in the monthly rental for a one-bedroom apartment, behind only San Francisco, New York and Boston.

The crisis is hitting home owners as well. In East Oakland, home ownership declined by 25 percent between 2006 and 2013. Over 11,000 homes were foreclosed.

East Oakland

---------------------------------------------

Drugs

Between 2008 and 2016 annual drug overdose admissions to Oakland hospitals increased from 103 to 220, and deaths from drug overdoses increased from 19 to 43, with both categories more than doubling.

The greatest increase in heroin use has occurred in both the 18-25 and 26-35 age groups.

According to the CDC, heroin related deaths have quadrupled in the United States from 2006 to 2016.

Oakland also is home to the largest “medical” marijuana clinic in the state of California.

Fruitvale District

---------------------------------------------

Black Removal

In 1980, Oakland was 49% African-American. Today the figure is 24%. Large- scale gentrification has been centered in the traditionally black neighborhoods of West Oakland, North Oakland, East Oakland and Uptown.

Since 1990, the city has lost 60,000 black residents.

Thousands of older homes and apartment buildings have been torn down, to be replaced by high-priced condominiums. The average price for a new condo in Oakland now tops $500,000, with better units going for a million dollars or more.

The rate of home foreclosures is also far higher in East Oakland and West Oakland than in other parts of the city.

North Oakland

---------------------------------------------

Those without Tents

There are 11 homeless shelters in Oakland. These contain a total of only 350 beds, and out of these, 180 beds are reserved for women with children or victims of domestic violence.

All of the homeless beds are let out, daily, on a first-come first-serve basis, and dozens are turned away every night when beds run out.

Those without tents, and unable to get into a shelter, may be found sleeping out in the open, in doorways, on sidewalks and in the parks.

At all major freeway exit ramps, as well as at many major traffic interchanges, beggars congregate to ask for money and other handouts.

Throughout any given day, dozens of people may be observed scrounging through garbage bins and recycling containers to pilfer plastic bottles and other items that may be exchanged for small amounts of money.

West Oakland

---------------------------------------------

Food & Children

Oakland has one government food bank and only one daily soup kitchen, run by the St. Vincent de Paul Society.

Several, primarily African-American, churches also provide either bulk food or, in a few cases, hot meals in their community, but in almost all of these cases these church programs are severely restricted due to lack of funds.

Similarly, health care is almost non-existent for Oakland’s homeless, with only a small handful of clinics available.

According to a report by the State of California, the number of homeless children has doubled in the last four years and is now at an all-time high. Some of these children are in shelters but many suffer the same fate as their parents.

In the Parks

---------------------------------------------

Immigrants

For those who like to blame America’s woes on “illegal immigrants,” bear in mind that Oakland’s population is 27% foreign-born, largely from Latin America and Asia. However, these immigrants make up a tiny, tiny percentage of Oakland’s homeless.

Largely, the immigrant population is crowded, ten or more to an apartment, in substandard housing units, and they stay alive by working 60 to 100 hours a week at minimum wage, or less, employment.

Hundreds of “illegals” may be observed every day, lining San Leandro Blvd., and other locations, waiting to hire out in undocumented sub-minimum wage “day labor,” with no legal protection of any kind.

Along the Waterfront

---------------------------------------------

Engendering Cultural Despair

The horrendous conditions represented in these photographs and the circumstances of the affected individuals are truly a crime. But there is something else to consider.

Hundreds of thousands of Oaklanders, as well as tens of thousands who commute into the city, either drive or walk by these encampments every day. And they are dunned for money at dozens of stoplights. And they see scavengers going through trash cans. And they see people sleeping on the sidewalk.

What does this do to the souls of people? What does this do to the culture of the society? How is it possible to remain human, to remain optimistic under these circumstances? It isn’t.

During the Black Death of the 14th Century, many of those who survived went mad. Today, young hipsters eat pastry and sip espresso while civilization collapses around them.

---------------------------------------------

Barely Hanging On

Individuals still fortunate enough to have a “home” include those living in RVs and busses, dozens of which may be seen lining the streets in certain areas; those living in shacks, converted cargo containers and other make-shift dwellings, most without heat or plumbing and many without electricity; and those on old boats, either at dilapidated marinas, or simply tying up anywhere they can find a free mooring. There are also large heavily wooded parks in the Oakland hills, and, according to many reports, there are hundreds of people living in them.

* * * * *

This, then, is America, after eight years of George Bush and eight years of Barack Obama. From Washington, D.C., there is no leadership, no inspiration, and no future. A great change is required.

How Obama Created an Opioid Epidemic

By Jeffrey Steinberg

From a LaRouchePAC.com video

Oct. 25—As many of you know by now, over the past several weeks, approximately 1.6 million American households received notice that their Obamacare annual premiums were going to be increased by anywhere from 50 to 70%. These households largely involve families either in the middle class or families that are living barely above one and a half times the poverty level; in other words, people who are among the most vulnerable in the population. In addition, many insurance companies are now pulling out of the Obamacare insurance pools altogether because the whole system is collapsing and the payment scales that have been set up for doctors and insurance companies are crashing through the floors. There is a certain degree of irony in the fact that President Obama was given the opportunity to create a genuine revolution in health care by going with a single-payer or Medicare-for-all program, but he chose not to do that. He gave the authorship of Obamacare to a bunch of insurance companies, and the net result is that the entire system is now collapsing.

Large and Growing Body Count

As the result of that, many tens of millions of Americans are going to be facing choices between accepting these exorbitant rate hikes, and by the way, at the same time, they will be experiencing substantial reductions in the actual medical coverage, or, basically, in many instances, having to trade off against vital other requirements: food, shelter, transportation. This is an enormous bite out of households, and in many instances the reductions in coverage are going to add up to a large and growing body count of needless deaths of people for whom basic medical services could mean the difference between life and death. In other words, Obamacare is in a freefall, and even President Obama himself had to admit this in an interview recently, where he said that many products come out initially flawed, but there’s always the opportunity to improve them, unless, he laughed, it is something like the recent disaster of the Samsung cell phones that catch on fire, and had to be recalled and thrown in the garbage. Well, Obamacare is ready to be thrown in the garbage, and until that happens Obama’s legacy on the domestic front is going to be one of mass suffering, increasing death rates, and destruction of household fabrics right here at home in the United States.

There are a couple of other dimensions to this emerging domestic crisis that are the direct result of the disastrous policies that have come out of the Obama administration for the last eight years. Right at the time that President Obama came into office, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued an alert and they declared a nationwide epidemic of opioid addiction. In many instances we’re talking about over-the-counter and prescription drugs, mostly prescription drugs like OxyContin that are pain relievers that have been flooding out from major pharmaceutical companies and drug distribution companies, of which there are only three in the United States, directly into the black market. In the last twelve months, there have been 249 million prescriptions for opioids given out in the United States alone.

CDC and DEA Warnings Ignored

That is an increase in prescriptions of several hundred percentage points over the span of the Obama Administration, and a recent report, published just the past several days, on the front page of the Washington Post, made clear that there were constant warnings coming from agents in the Drug Enforcement Administration and other agencies that there was a massive flood of pharmaceutical-grade opioids landing in the black market, and when there were cases presented, the U.S. Department of Justice, clearly under orders from the White House, simply said, “No prosecution.”

We already know that too-big-to-fail bankers are allowed to steal from their customers, steal from American taxpayers and get away with it because they are “too big to jail.” Well, guess what? The same thing is true for the top executives of the major pharmaceutical companies who are behind this epidemic outbreak of opioid addiction and deaths. The rate of increase of opioid deaths in the United States stands at fifteen percent per year, again according to recent studies that have been published.

Nazi Health Care

If you put the picture together, and this is really two thirds of the picture, you have an Obamacare public health system that has been an abysmal failure and is cranking up the body count of America’s most vulnerable people, those barely living above poverty: senior citizens, those with serious medical conditions, who are being looted and literally told to drop dead as the consequence of this fatally flawed policy that has been known to be a rotten program from the very beginning. Way back in 2009, Lyndon LaRouche drew the parallel between the Nazi euthanasia program known as T-4 and key elements of the Obamacare program, and that was even before the final version was produced and passed through Congress and signed into law. Now we’ve got the Administration clearly responsible for a failure to develop a policy for effectively dealing with what CDC has called an epidemic of opioid addiction and deaths by overdose.

There is a third leg to this policy. Many of you may remember that, going back to the 2008 Presidential campaign, candidate Barack Obama attacked the Bush Administration, rightly so, for the disaster of the Iraq war, but he also took full ownership of and responsibility for the Afghanistan war. Here we are, eight years later, and what do we have? There is still a U.S. and NATO military presence on the ground in Afghanistan. Sixty percent of the country, according to one recent Pentagon estimate, is under the control of Taliban, ISIS or other rebel forces. The place is a worse mess than it was when Obama first announced that he was claiming ownership of that conflict.

Afghan Opium Skyrockets

Last week, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime produced an astounding report. It said that opium production in Afghanistan, year on year, from 2015 into 2016, is up 43%, and the estimate is that 4,800 tons of opium have been produced in Afghanistan, and are now streaming on to world markets, in Russia, in Europe, now in Africa, and in the United States. It happens to be part of the same opioid addiction picture, that people who become “hooked” on prescription OxyContin and other similar drugs find that they have an alternative. They can buy heroin on the streets in middle class suburban and even rural neighborhoods anywhere in the United States, and they can buy the heroin at one quarter the price of prescription OxyContin and other opioid drugs. You have a great increase of heroin addiction among formerly exempt segments of the population. White, middle class suburban areas, not to mention the inner cities and the poor rural communities, are all being flooded with cheap, abundant, high quality heroin, and those are the same areas that are experiencing the greatest increases in opioid abuse, addiction and death by overdose.

So, let’s step back and look at the Obama legacy when it comes to the basic, most rudimentary conditions of life for the American people, for you, your relatives, your neighbors, your friends. This is an epidemic; it is a man-made epidemic, and it is an epidemic we can trace back to the fatally flawed policies of a President who is beholden to people like George Soros, the biggest drug legalizer in the world, beholden to the British Crown, which has always carried out opium war policies. Now those policies are being directed with a vengeance against the population of the United States, coming directly from the White House, and its destruction of the health care system, which means that people who develop drug dependencies—whether by opioids they get by prescriptions from their doctors, perhaps get them from pharmacy mills or things like that, or get heroin directly on the street—if you need help to overcome these problems, then you’re looking at a health care system that will simply kick you out the door.

Legacy of Death and Destruction

We have a legacy of death, of destruction, of menticide, that must be understood as an absolutely fundamental aspect of the legacy of eight years of this Obama Presidency. We’ve still got months to go. There are no signs whatsoever that this problem is being seriously addressed or is going to be resolved at any time in the future. The death rates are going to continue to spike. The collapse of the health care system that is now assured in the immediate months ahead is going to immediately compound this and make it worse, and you’ve got Barack Obama to thank for it.

III. A New Era for France and Germany

Our Common Mission Is To Join

The New Silk Road Principle

Edited remarks of Jacques Cheminade, French presidential candidate for 2017, at the Schiller Institute’s Essen conference on Oct. 21.

Thank you Helga Zepp-LaRouche; thanks to all of you who have invited me to speak with strong words responding to the challenge of the present world situation.

Who would have thought, forty or even thirty years ago, that China would become the leading factor in the world in the future? Who would have thought that more than 800 million human beings would be lifted out of poverty? Who would have thought that China’s concept of a “win/win” strategy for the common aims and the community of destiny of mankind would become a reality, and that the New Silk Road would become the paradigm for change, the potential alternative to the financial disaster of the predatory Atlantic system? Who would have thought that the center of the world would shift from Europe and the Americas to Asia?

EIRNS/Chris Lewis

Jacques Cheminade

---------------------------------------------

Who? Certainly not the mass media and the technocrats in the West, who have been looking at their navels instead, and have still not realized the dynamics of this change, except when they are awakened from time to time by their fear of something foreign to their greed.

What we have before our eyes—and what those media and those technocrats do not want to see—is the largest plan for industrialization and development that ever existed at the level of our planet, far beyond the Marshall Plan in scope, for example, and far above it in intention and direction. Indeed, the New Silk Road, extended to the level of the “One Belt, One World Road,” is, whether we like it or not, the alternative to a nuclear confrontation between the United States and Russia, and to a global meltdown of the financial system on our Atlantic side. The proverbial “Mid-Atlantic man” of the last century has become a narcissist pirate, operating in the conditions of a crime-prone society, behaving like a son of Obama or Cheney.

Let’s look at it from above: the financial deregulation of the Thatcher moment, the opening of an era of open-ended looting, short-term thinking and obsession with immediate profit, was preceded and is now followed by the deregulation of moral behavior of a miscarried Woodstock and May 68 counter-culture. The problem is that it has happened both in the United States and Europe, but even much worse, nobody is doing much against it among the “respectable” circles of the prevailing powers, and much, much worse is the fact that “Thatcherism”—the source of the present evil—is presented as a solution. The cover of the October 6 French magazine Le Point says it openly, as it spreads the British Empire’s message for brutal austerity.

The New Silk Road, extended to a One Belt, One World Road, instead opens the way to long-term thinking and shared economic progress, and out of a system of financial looting and geopolitical confrontation. The New Silk Road, together with the new banking institutions of the BRICS, is a belt along and around a road, spreading development along its way. A linear transportation system of high-speed railways radiates negentropic development, and builds a bridge between China and the world. It is by definition antagonistic to the fictitious capital produced by our financial system, and it builds a platform for world infrastructure investments.

Concretely, Chinese President Xi Jinping outlined, at the Hangzhou G-20 summit, his proposal for a reform of the G20: “it has to be transformed from a crisis-response mechanism to a mechanism of long term governance” and “must play a leading role in dealing with any ensuing economic crisis.” It is not a reactive option; it is an initiative defining the environment for new options of mutual development.

Konrad Adenauer (right) receives Charles de Gaulle (left) in Bonn.

---------------------------------------------

A De Gaulle-Adenauer Community of Principle

In this context, there is a point of special interest for us, as German and French citizens. We have both lost the spirit of the de Gaulle-Adenauer community of purpose. Here is precisely the opportunity to recover our community of purpose though our joint participation in the road towards the future opened by China. For us, this mutual participation should be the opportunity both to free ourselves from the suicidal grip of finance, and to take part in a project to recover the best of our culture and our true European identity, as patriots and world-citizens speaking our languages with a sense of togetherness. Through the need to work together with China as Europeans, we in France would again have to learn and speak German, and you in Germany to do the same with French, especially to work in French-speaking Africa. To join the Silk Road principle does not mean to alienate our identities, but to mutually enhance them.

Is it a paradox that the Chinese initiative would give new resilience to our alliance? Not at all, because it has already happened in the past, and it has a name: Leibniz and the Leibnizian science of physical economics. In the Seventeenth and Eighteenth centuries, the great German philosopher—and also French, through his participation in Colbert’s Academy of Sciences—understood that the future of the world was based on scientific, cultural and economic cooperation between what he then called “the two most developed extremes of Eurasia,” inclusive of Russia and Central Asia. Leibniz worked with a group of Jesuit scientists, such as French Father Gerbillon, organizer of the Nerchinsk Treaty, the first Russian-Chinese peace agreement, and Belgian Father Verbiest, who had taught the Kangxi Emperor. Leibniz conceived that the sources of Christian evangelism were not only compatible with, but in agreement with the true Confucian tradition, in the accomplishment of what unites the moral nature of man with the universe, the true creative identity of man.

At that point, the British imperial forces and the agents of the British East India Company sabotaged those efforts. Lord Macartney, after coming back from an embassy to China in 1794, reported in his journal on the danger of “Chinese strength” to the “weight of the riches and the genius” of Great Britain. He nonetheless expected “rivalry and disorder” within the Chinese Empire which, if handled properly, would be “beneficial to our kingdom.” The official account of the embassy, written by Sir George Staunton, rings the same bell. Both warn that a Chinese population of about 350 million human beings, then involved in the advanced areas of science and mechanics, could be dangerously antagonistic to the British system of monetarism and monarchism. The British Empire, in accordance with its principle of divide and rule, then started promoting conflicts in Asia, and finally imposed the opium trade to destroy not only China but the connection between Chinese culture and the true European culture of Leibniz and his followers.

Today we have to confront the same enemy who has become Anglo-American—British brains and American muscle—and our community of interest with present-day China is again to revive the Leibniz approach, and free our Western world from its submission to the City of London and Wall Street.

It is not a dream or a scheme; it is a reality whose accomplishment depends upon our common will, as Germans, Frenchmen, and all European peoples and cultures. I am not suggesting that it will be an easy thing; it demands courage to tell the truth and fight for it from the top down. But it is only if we look from under the belly of history that the road appears to be a dead end. Given the circumstances of our deadly Western weakness, the Chinese government is demanding the status of a market economy to sell more of its products in Europe, at the same time that the United States is attempting to impose the TAFTA Treaty upon us to crush our independence. The only solution is to look at it from above.

It is not at the level of unchecked competition between European and Chinese products that the dilemma can be solved. It is at the level of government-to-government agreements that there is a solution, along and around the New Silk Road becoming a One World Road for mutual development of all. It is at the level of what we may and shall do together, that our common future lies: neither in deadly competition, nor in suicidal geopolitics, but in a shared development of joint projects, such as the Moon-Mars space project; the transformation of oceans and seas from areas of looting imposed by financial greed, into long-term “farming on water”; and our common development of Africa. The BRICS and we Europeans have to become united in purpose, mustering our energies to bring the United States into this mutually beneficial venture and out of the rule of imperial and geopolitical evil.

The Irish Naval Service rescuing migrants in the Mediterranean, 2015.

---------------------------------------------

Solving the Migrant Crisis

Let’s now put the finger where it hurts. You all know that there are thousands of migrants who drown in the Mediterranean, and that many more die on their way from central Africa to the sea, while crossing the deserts. But what you may not know, is that all the most sacred laws of human behaviour are violated along the way. And the oldest of them, the moral imperative to help people threatened with dying at sea, is the most often violated of all. My friends at the Médecins du monde NGO confirmed to me that both container ships and oil and gas tankers not only refuse to stop to help the migrants in danger of drowning, but even drive them off, sometimes with high-pressure water from fire hoses. It is one of the most horrendous crimes that one can imagine. Why is it committed? Because the captains and the crews of those ships work on the basis of an hour-to-hour schedule. If they arrive late, it means a loss of financial profit for their companies, and they are punished. Helping migrants in danger of dying therefore means they will be penalized for being late, or perhaps even laid off. All the more so, as they risk being quarantined with the people that they might have saved! That explains their criminal behavior, even if it certainly does not clear them from their responsibility.

But who are the ultimate criminals behind these crimes committed at sea or in the deserts of Africa? First the policies of the United States and our European countries: the NATO wars that have wrecked the societies of the Middle East, including the support given by our Saudi and Qatari allies to jihadi criminals. And behind them, the money of the British, American and also French not-so-secret services. The second and main criminal is our financial system, which puts the rule of short-term financial profit above the saving of human lives. In that sense, we do indeed belong to a “culture of death.”

Have I gone far from the New Silk Road in exposing this? Not at all, because it leads us to the alternative. If we want to stop such crimes, we need a world defined by something other than war provocations and the law of short-term profit. That is the principled approach of the Silk Road! To stop the flow of migrants that Europe is unable to cope with—since the same financial system under which those crimes are committed at sea also prevents us from creating employment here—we need a change of paradigm. First, we need first to stop the wars in the Middle East, second to eradicate the roots of those wars, and third, to rebuild the entire region to create the conditions in which the people could go back to their homes, or only leave them as a matter of choice and not out of despair.

For more than two years now, we, the Western countries, have allegedly fought Al Qaida, Daesh and their allies, on paper and from the air, without cutting their financial roots, and have therefore let their criminal influence spread, rather than stopping it. Our war on terrorism, as well as our war on drugs, have been fake wars. It is the intervention of Vladimir Putin’s Russia—considering our obliging attitude towards the jihadi gangs—which has now created the conditions for eradicating the criminals. But to prevent the coming fall of Mosul and Aleppo from spreading the disease out from around them, we need to rebuild the nations of the region as soon as possible, beginning with Iraq and Syria.

And China, with the perspective of the New Silk Road, has proposed a $30 billion fund for that purpose. It would be wise and just for our countries to join that with many more billions, instead of fueling the monetarist disease by issuing 80 billion euros of fake money every month to support our banking system, which amounts to giving drugs to dead corpses.

This perspective of real nation-building and nation-reconstruction in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world, would put an end to the rule of financial profit at the speed of light—that rule of financial profit which induces the captains and their crews to let the migrants die a horrendous death.

Again, is it a dream? “An angelic humanist dream,” as it is called by those who are only inspired by greed? Not at all. It is a process by which we can regain our humanity, and, by the same token, the principle of mutual economic growth. We Europeans should know that better than everyone else, because it is according to that principle, that we rebuilt our countries after the horrors of World War Two, with true human capital.

Let us then, as Frenchmen and Germans, who are losing our industrial and energy bases, rediscover this principle, with our minds located in a better, possible, future. Let us fight for the cause of our peoples and the cause of humanity as a single cause, because if we do not, our punishment will soon be economic chaos, in a crime-prone world, leading to a new world war. A wounded tiger is the most dangerous of all tigers—let us therefore stop behaving like tigers. Let us develop the partnership of our minds, together to build the beautiful world shown by the preceding speakers. Let us become patriots and world citizens, as Friedrich Schiller defined a true human identity.

Statement by Helga Zepp-LaRouche and Jacques Cheminade Against the Threat of a New World War

Let Us Build the

Eurasian Train for Peace

On the sidelines of the Oct. 21, 2016 Schiller Institute conference in Essen, Germany, on the prospects opened for Europe by the New Silk Road Policy of China, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, president of the Schiller Institute, and Jacques Cheminade, French presidential candidate, made the following statement.

Never since 1945 has the world been so close to a new world war, which today would be a nuclear conflict. At the same time, however, never have the possibilities for establishing a new world order of peace and development, been so great.

The danger of war is coming from an attempt by the Western powers to maintain their hegemony over the world at all costs, despite the fact that they have nothing but wars and financial looting to offer. The great hope is coming from a rising group of countries—Russia, China, India, and the BRICS—fighting for a world where all have the right to progress through development in science, advanced technologies, and industry; a world of peace and stability based on the international body of law that emerged from the victory against Nazism, and which is embodied in the UN Charter.

The only alternative to the policies of the Washington Consensus, which have led us to the present crisis, is the New Silk Road project proposed by China, as a policy for peace and cooperation worldwide. This project, which is already a reality for the 70 countries that are participating in it, is the biggest project of industrial recovery ever to have existed on the planet, mobilizing close to $1 trillion in scientific research and great infrastructure projects in Eurasia, Ibero-America and Africa.

Patriots and world citizens in the tradition of de Gaulle’s and Adenauer’s Europe of the Fatherlands and great projects, we call on our governments to immediately join the efforts of these rising powers, and to demand from the United States and Britain that they bury the Empire’s axe of war.

We should immediately respond to three great projects being proposed, all of which are within our reach and directly concern our national interests:

1. France and Germany must start building with China, the Silk Road freight train of the future, coming from China and branching towards different countries in Europe. Convoys exist already, but have great difficulty in crossing all borders. We must envisage now, a Silk Road train which will run in a Eurasian continent which 30 years from now will be as developed as China today. This railway, running on single standard unified tracks and having minimal border controls, must be, in the tradition of Lincoln’s Transcontinental Railway, and of the Trans-Siberian Railway, a trans-Eurasian railroad, built by a Europe of the Fatherlands and of great projects. An agreement will be necessary from China, Russia, and all the other countries which the train will traverse.

2. France and Germany must respond to the efforts of China and Russia to bring the Middle East wars of destruction, ignited by the Western powers, to an end, and to begin the reconstruction. These policies are the only human response, not only to those countries’ plight, but also to the ever-increasing flow of immigrants to our countries.

3. France and Germany must work towards joint great projects with China in Africa. A joint framework to that effect was already signed by France and China on June 30th, 2015. The priority must go to large-scale infrastructure projects: dams, railroads, and energy including nuclear power.

When the Western elites have no other policies than to impose brutal austerity on populations to save a financial world dead since the 2008 crisis; when the only way for the West to maintain its hegemony is through deployment or toleration of bloody Nazis in Ukraine and hideous jihadists in the Middle East—clearly, we can say with China, that if the West wants to maintain the mandate of Heaven to govern, it must change.

EDITORIAL

Why Hillary Clinton Can’t Tell the Truth

Nov. 1—Earlier, Hillary Clinton had always been a problematic person in some respects, and had never had the qualifications for the Presidency, but she did not become the moral-psychological wreckage she is today, until her tenure as Barack Obama’s nominal Secretary of State.

When she was fighting against the synthetic figure of Barack Obama for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2007-08, Mrs. Clinton (and Bill Clinton) rightly held Obama totally in contempt. And sure enough, the contemptible British puppet Obama went on to cheat Hillary out of the Democratic nomination, thanks to British drug-money flowing over the Mexican border into corrupt Texas Democratic caucuses in 2008.

Later, after Obama was elected President, when he offered Hillary the position of Secretary of State, Lyndon LaRouche knew immediately that this was a poisoned chalice, and warned Hillary not to accept it. But she was misled by her own ambition.

Hillary had lied to herself that she would be able to influence Obama for the better, as she conceived the better. Instead, she proved the bitter truth of LaRouche’s forecast. Over the first two years of Obama’s first term, Hillary Clinton degenerated into permanent hysteria out of sheer physical terror of Obama. She became nothing more than Obama’s brainless zombie—as she still is to this day.

Because, who is Obama? As Hillary knows to her sorrow, he is a madman who loves nothing so much as killing. He is the man who looks forward to the “Terror Tuesdays” in the White House, when he can choose picture-cards (jokingly called baseball cards), to select the next round of murder-victims, including American citizens, to be murdered by drone or otherwise. Obama watches these murders on closed-circuit television called “killTV.”

On July 13, 2015, LaRouche organizer Daniel Burke asked Hillary Clinton repeatedly where she stood on reviving Franklin Roosevelt’s Glass-Steagall protections, which are part of Lyndon LaRouche’s “Four Laws” for a U.S. economic recovery. She lied by refusing to answer. In succeeding days, lie after lie issued from her campaign, until she finally openly rejected Glass-Steagall. (Candidate Trump later endorsed Glass-Steagall in the closing days of the campaign, even if that does not make Trump a moral genius.)

Lyndon LaRouche said that Hillary’s lie to Daniel Burke would be her destruction, and so it has become.

The reason that Hillary can’t tell the truth, is that the words coming out of her mouth are all Barack Obama’s!

Executive Intelligence Review, Vol.43, No.45, November 4, 2016

Masthead

EDITORIAL: Hillary Clinton Will Start World War III

EIR Contents www.larouchepub.com — Volume 43, Number 45, November 4, 2016

I. In Hamilton’s Footsteps

SCHILLER INSTITUTE CONFERENCE, OCTOBER 29 LaRouche’s Four Laws for World Recovery and Civilizational Growth

SCHILLER INSTITUTE CONFERENCE, OCTOBER 29: Southwest Asia and the New Silk Road

The BRICS Summit: A Battlefield Report

II. The U.S. Economy Under Obama

An Oakland, California Photo Essay: Obama’s America

How Obama Created an Opioid Epidemic

III. A New Era for France and Germany

Our Common Mission Is To Join The New Silk Road Principle

Statement by Helga Zepp-LaRouche and Jacques Cheminade Against the Threat of a New World War Let Us Build the Eurasian Train for Peace

EDITORIAL Why Hillary Clinton Can’t Tell the Truth