Executive Intelligence Review, Volume 46, Number 3, January 18, 2019

- Cover

- Masthead

- EDITORIAL FBI Targeting of Trump Comes Under Growing Attack by Barbara Boyd

- PDF edition Table of Contents — Volume 46, Number 3, January 18, 2019

- I. Veil Lifted From British Empire

- The British Come Out of the Shadows by Barbara Boyd

- ZEPP-LAROUCHE WEBCAST The Underlying Positive World Dynamic the British Empire Tries To Hide from You

- LAROUCHE’S OPERATION JUAREZ The Potential for a New Era in U.S.-Mexico Relations Now by Harley Schlanger

- II. A World Without Empire

- Creating a Renaissance Out of the Depths of a Dark Age by Megan Beets

- IS SCIENCE SUBVERSIVE? The Potential of U.S.-China Collaboration in Science by Brian Lantz

- III. The Four Powers and the New System

- Dec. 3, 2001 World In Crisis Needs A New Monetary System

Jail Jim Comey for Collusion with Britain

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, William Wertz

Co-Editors: Robert Ingraham, Tony Papert

Technology: Marsha Freeman

Transcriptions: Katherine Notley

Ebooks: Richard Burden

Graphics: Alan Yue

Photos: Stuart Lewis

Circulation Manager: Stanley Ezrol

INTELLIGENCE DIRECTORS

Economics: Marcia Merry Baker, Paul Gallagher

History: Anton Chaitkin

Ibero-America: Dennis Small

United States: Debra Freeman

INTERNATIONAL BUREAUS

Berlin: Rainer Apel

Copenhagen: Tom Gillesberg

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.

(571) 293-0935

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

Tel: 49-611-73650

Homepage: http://www.eir.de

e-mail: info@eir.de

Director: Georg Neudecker

Montreal, Canada: 514-461-1557

eir@eircanada.ca

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: ©2018 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

FBI Targeting of Trump Comes Under Growing Attack

by Barbara Boyd

Marion S. Trikosko

J. Edgar Hoover

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

Jan. 14—There is a building furor from all sides of the political spectrum about the FBI targeting of Donald Trump as a Manchurian candidate traitor following the firing of James Comey. Some people absolutely get the fact that it is the British who are behind this targeting. It’s our job to escalate the furor. As of this writing, Part I of my Three-Part Series on “The British and the Coup Against the President” has 3700 social media shares.

John Dowd, the storied Washington, D.C. criminal attorney who represented the President in the initial rounds of the Mueller probe, put the matter succinctly in an interview with Fox News:

Little did I know that it appears that they were all in it together. I mean Rosenstein, Comey, Mueller, McCabe, the whole crowd, and they were out to get this president no matter what. I don’t think they sincerely believed anything about Russia . . . This is our worst nightmare, that someone with that kind of power would then decide to go after the President. I mean, it’s a coup. That’s what it is, an attempted coup by Comey and his crowd. And the evidence is all over there. I take the New York Times article as an admission of their bad behavior.

Dowd otherwise commented that the United States must appear now to the world as a banana republic rather than a nation of laws.

Dan Bogino, the very popular Fox News commentator, picked out articles from May 2018 for his Twitter and Web audience, highlighting the British role in the aforesaid coup, and honing in on Richard Dearlove specifically. May of 2018 was when the initial revelations appeared concerning Stefan Halper and Richard Dearlove, further exposed now in LaRouche PAC’s three-part expose.

In a piece also published on foxnews.com, Victoria Toensing and Joseph diGenova, state:

A stench has been emanating from the J. Edgar Hoover Building (FBI headquarters) for over two years. It landed Saturday on the front page of the New York Times in an article citing “former law enforcement officials” claiming they had to deal with explosive implications that President Donald Trump was “knowingly” or “unwittingly” working for Russia. Thus, the story goes, there was a basis to begin the Russia collusion investigation. . . .

In fact, “The Gray Lady” was covering the derrieres of the Obama Administration officials involved in the cabal to frame Trump, who now fear an imminent Special Counsel finding that during the 2016 campaign there was no collusion between Trump and the Russians. The article is intended to convey the following message: Even though there was no evidence to support the allegations, those making the decision to investigate Trump did so in good faith.

DiGenova, the former U.S. Attorney for Washington, D.C., and Toensing, a former head of the Justice Department Criminal Division’s Fraud Unit, go on to completely lambast the bad and very dirty cops at the top of the FBI, noting,

The New York Times story was created to obfuscate the real criminal conspiracy: violation of Title 18 of U.S. Code Section 242, which prohibits any person under color of law (i.e., Obama Administration personnel) to deprive another of “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution.” Such legal protection includes being free from a criminal investigation based on false charges . . .

Perhaps the bizarre January 20, 2017 email Susan Rice wrote “to herself” purporting to document a January 5, 2017 meeting with President Obama, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, FBI Director Comey and Vice President Joe Biden, gives a clue as to some of those conspirators. The meeting discussed the Steele dossier and Russian collusion, but curiously Rice stressed that the former president said every aspect should be handled “by the book.” Yet, Strzok had told his FBI colleague and paramour Lisa Page not to worry about Trump being elected because “We’ll stop it.”

Obama’s statement to Rice is what prosecutors call a false exculpatory statement, something which happens all the time in white collar prosecutions of lawyers where very guilty people consciously create a paper trail exonerating themselves from guilt.

Finally, Glenn Greenwald really nails it in a January 14 article for the Intercept.

Greenwald takes the lapdog media to task for insisting that the targeting of the President for a security investigation is “unprecedented,” thereby erasing from American history the numerous previous chapters concerning an out-of-control FBI. In particular, Greenwald cites the unending J. Edgar Hoover investigation of FDR’s Vice President, Henry Wallace—later a post-War third-party presidential candidate—for his peacemaking efforts and direct defiance of the British Empire. Greenwald cites the following passage from a September 1946 Wallace speech which, apparently, especially inflamed Hoover:

Make no mistake about it—the British imperialist policy in the Near East alone, combined with Russian retaliation, would lead the United States straight to war unless we have a clearly defined and realistic policy of our own.

Neither of these two great powers wants war now, but the danger is that whatever their intentions may be, their current policies may eventually lead to war. To prevent war and insure our survival in a stable world, it is essential that we look abroad through our own American eyes and not through the eyes of either the British Foreign Office or a pro-British or anti-Russian press . . .

We must not let our Russian policy be guided or influenced by those inside or outside the United States who want war with Russia. . . .

EIR Contents

www.larouchepub.com — Volume 46, Number 3, January 18, 2019

Cover This Week

FBI

Former FBI Director James Comey.

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

JAIL JIM COMEY FOR COLLUSION WITH BRITAIN

2 EDITORIAL

FBI Targeting of Trump Comes Under Growing Attack

by Barbara Boyd

I. VEIL LIFTED FROM BRITISH EMPIRE

5 The British Come Out of the Shadows

by Barbara Boyd

16 ZEPP-LAROUCHE WEBCAST

The Underlying Positive World Dynamic the British Empire Tries to Hide from You

23 LYNDON LAROUCHE’S OPERATION JUAREZ

The Potential for a New Era in U.S.-Mexico Relations Now

by Harley Schlanger

II. A WORLD WITHOUT EMPIRE

28 Creating a Renaissance Out of the Depths of a Dark Age

by Megan Beets

36 IS SCIENCE SUBVERSIVE?

The Potential of U.S.-China Collaboration in Science

by Brian Lantz

III. THE FOUR POWERS AND THE NEW SYSTEM

46 World in Crisis Needs a New Monetary System

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

December 3, 2001

Correction to Jan. 11 issue: The last paragraph of the left column of page 16 should read:

This phenomenon can be described as follows. The lengths of a wide range of biological cycles, over many orders of magnitude, scale as the one-fourth power of the mass (an inverse relationship). The metabolic rates, also over a comparably wide range, scaleas the three-quarter power of the mass (also an inverse relationship, because the power is again less than one). Multiplying these two relationships gives energy times time, divided by mass to the first power, yielding so many joule-seconds per kilogram of body mass. In the case of the lifetime, viewed as a cycle, one gets energy (joules) expended per unit of mass over a lifetime. This number is remarkably constant for the placental mammals from the mouse to the elephant.

I. Veil Lifted From British Empire

The British Come Out of the Shadows

by Barbara Boyd

The following is an edited transcript of Barbara Boyd’s prepared remarks for delivery on the Jan. 10 LaRouche PAC Fireside Chat.

I’m going to tell you a true crime story, which is made possible by two converging events: the House of Lords’ recent Report “U.K. Foreign Policy In a Shifting World Order,” delivered in November 2018, and the exposure of the Integrity Initiative, a British military information warfare outfit which, fortunately for us, had lots of its internal papers posted recently on the Internet. Think of the Lords as the purveyors of the actual policies of Empire, although they write in sanitized diplospeak. Think of the Integrity Initiative as the enforcers of this view, creating propaganda in order to excite martial instincts against their targets for war, especially war with Russia.

Sir Richard Dearlove

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

Looking at the overlaps in personnel between the Integrity Initiative and the British circles around Sir Richard Dearlove, the former MI6 chief, who was actually running Christopher Steele’s operation against Donald Trump, also allows us to look at the story told about the British and the 2016 campaign in a different light and recast it. That’s because the main fact about this story is that the British ran the operation, not some dark group at the Department of Justice or the Obama White House, or the crazy partisans of Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Yes, they too participated whole-heartedly, but that is not the story. The story is that the American public got royally jerked around by its age-old enemy. That’s the story.

The Congress and the partisans of Fox News are covering this up, and limiting your view because they themselves are compromised by the very same operation. Who owns Fox, my friends? It’s the Murdochs with all their Tory policies, against which we have warred for many years. The Lords’ Report claims that the U.S. Congress is mainly made up of raving Anglophiles who have been revved up to a near froth about Russia and China, and that they are expending large amounts of energy trying to put Donald Trump in the same suicidal box. There is nothing evident in Congressional behavior to put what the Lords say about them in doubt.

So, let’s get to it.

The House of Lords’ Report

First, the Lords’ Report. The Lords are looking at how the British adjust to Brexit. Don’t get me wrong. They are still incredibly freaked out that the event even occurred, and a big part of their Report is devoted to the idea that they can prevent any such exercise of democracy from ever happening again. That is one big part of their Report—how to control the Internet and people’s access to information. The second part of the report targets four nations—the United States, Russia, China, and India—as being the most important for the future of the British Empire. These are, of course the same four nations cited by Lyndon LaRouche as holding the potential for ending the British Empire once and for all and launching a true, new human Renaissance in the world.

CC/stell

Right:Samuel P. Huntington

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

According to the Lords, the economic collapse in 2008, the bailout, and the EU’s austerity regimes had nothing to do with the popular dissatisfaction expressed in the Brexit vote. That just caused economic anxiety among commoners. Instead, they say, the continuing populist insurgency is caused by “people’s access to information, boosted by instant connectivity on an unprecedented scale and speed. Governments are responding to short-term demands of their citizens, who have been empowered by their access to information and opinion.” This is the imperial line first promulgated by Samuel Huntington, author of the genocidal tract, “The Clash of Civilizations?” (Foreign Affairs, Summer 1993), and inventor of the term “Davos man” to celebrate globalization.

In his 1975 Crisis of Democracy report for the Trilateral Commission, Huntington proclaimed that democracies only work when large swaths of the population are apathetic, citing the empowerment of African-Americans by the civil rights movement as a clear and present danger to political stability.

Now, this over-broad access to information, they say, has led many in the “base,” or population, to believe in “conspiracy theories” rather than anything governments say. This meme is widespread now in the trans-Atlantic elites and has been a frequent line used by Barack Obama.

Conspiracy theorists, according to the Integrity Initiative, include those who say the Government’s explanation of 9/11 does not cut it, that the U.S. intervention in Syria and Libya openly supported terrorists, that the Ukraine coup, run by the British and the U.S. State Department, had a major neo-Nazi component, that Russia is not genetically predisposed to evil (both Sir Richard Dearlove and James Clapper have claimed Russians have evil in their genes), and other truths about very real Anglo-American genocides and foreign conspiracies. These offensive truths, the “conspiracy theories,” are readily available on the Internet, in Cyberspace—the realm which the Lords now seek to dominate and control.

Rolling Back the Global Mass Strike

The 2016 U.S. election and the Brexit vote represented wholesale political activation by the very people that the elites disdain, Trump’s “forgotten men and women,” using, ironically, the technology invented for social control purposes by Facebook and Twitter as major organizing tools. These were actual exercises of democracy. The Lords and the antics of their Integrity Initiative make it clear that they intend now to kill this activation. Censorship and counter propaganda or “cognitive infiltration,” as Barack Obama’s friend Cass Sunstein dubbed the required action, are now being massively deployed in the United States, Britain, and throughout Europe.

Actual experimental studies, conducted over many years, of the impact of propaganda, have demonstrated that it works when populations have no alternatives to look at, and are reacting constantly to the media bombardment of the 24-hour news cycle. It fails almost immediately when people are introduced to an alternative—such as the publicity surrounding the rapid economic development that China is now producing throughout the world, or being presented with the sudden and shocking realization that China is now exploring the far side of the Moon, specifically with the idea of using the Moon’s helium-3 as fuel for fusion power. The wonderful thing about human nature is that the imagination and desire for new frontiers and adventures, if provoked, can and will destroy years of tedious work in planning and implementing any fixed social control system, and that, as if in an instant.

With respect to the Four Powers, the Lords are quite explicit. They say openly that the U.S.-British “Special Relationship,” which exists in defense and intelligence relations and across many NGOs and civic organizations, and is particularly alive and well in the U.S. Congress, can handle and subvert Donald Trump for one term but not two. Sir Richard Dearlove, whose Henry Jackson Society played a major role in this Report, says in his private conversations not to worry about Trump. He says he will be a one-term President. Pretty shockingly open about it.

With respect to the Russians, the trick is to keep them a failing power, to make NATO a monster propaganda and military operation, and hopefully, as a result, there will be a change of regime in Russia. This is telegraphed even in the diplospeak of the Lords’ Report, but becomes quite evident when you see the boots on the ground in the form of the Integrity Initiative.

With respect to China, the British are participating in the Belt and Road and Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and are confident that they can manipulate and subvert these initiatives to their own geopolitical ends. With respect to India, the Lords intend to increase their security relationships, and they make reference to the historic tensions between China and India, with the obvious intent to exploit them. I don’t mean to say that the British aren’t into a full military mode about China. The Lords, however, plan to use the United States and such British supported institutions as the Hudson Institute, and IISS fellow Mike Pillsbury to constantly inflame the U.S. population to that end.

So, that’s the imperative from the Lords’ Report: Destroy the potential of the Four Powers: Make people docile and crazy through propaganda and outright censorship.

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

The Integrity Initiative

Now let’s talk about the Integrity Initiative, the boots on the ground for implementing all of this, not only in Britain but also right here in the United States. On November 23, 2018, a group calling itself “Anonymous” began posting actual documents from the Integrity Initiative, identifying it as a rapid-response, black-propaganda, information-warfare operation targeting Russia, China, Western Europe, and the United States. Since that initial posting, there have been three other document dumps concerning the Initiative, the last on January 4.

The Integrity Initiative is run under the Institute for Statecraft, a British NGO which receives 95 percent of its funding from the British government, NATO, and the U.S. State Department. It is housed in London, right next to the International Institute for Strategic Relations, the British think tank that largely dictates imperial foreign policies. The building once housed the Knights Templar and was the London home of William Astor. Since Anonymous starting posting, the Institute has been visited by all sorts of interested reporters, who have been brusquely escorted off the premises. The “official” address of the Institute for Statecraft is actually a dilapidated and abandoned building in Scotland. It recently got a significant cash boost from Facebook, and it is going after tax exempt status, if you can believe it, in the United States.

Its current plan is to expand into and target major U.S. cities—not on the coasts—since the coasts, they say, are already taken care of. The plan is to concentrate in the presidential battleground states for the 2020 elections. Remember, as Dearlove and the Lords insist, Donald Trump cannot get a second term. The first document released by Anonymous brags that the Integrity Initiative managed to derail the nomination of Pedro Banos to head Spain’s Homeland Security Department, based on a two-hour smear campaign claiming he was too soft on Moscow.

The Initiative has what it calls “clusters”—contact groups of journalists, military and foreign office personnel, academics, and lobbyists, within almost every European country, the United States, and Canada, and is now looking to expand to the Middle East. These people get alerts, often through the medium of Initiative “contacts” in British embassies, to take action when the British Foreign Office perceives a need. The U.S. and British clusters are dominated by individuals from the Atlantic Council, the rabidly anti-Russian and anti-Chinese Jamestown Foundation, the Center for European Policy Analysis, and similar National Endowment for Democracy spinoffs.

Remember, the Atlantic Council premises in Washington were where the Lords convened for their U.S. visit. It is the flagship British think tank in the United States. It houses the Digital Research Lab, which is home to Dimitri Alperovitz, the guy who also leads CrowdStrike, the company that manufactured the fake story about Russian hacking of the DNC and John Podesta. It is also home to Ben Nimmo, who works both for the Integrity Initiative and the Atlantic Council, and who has written many of the provably fake claims about Russian President Vladimir Putin’s purported monster cyber capabilities. The Digital Research Lab was also recently hired by Facebook to police and censor its users.

Top left: CC 2.0; bottom: DoD

Top left: Sir Andrew Wood; bottom: Evelyn Farkas

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

The Initiative’s U.S. cluster has Evelyn Farkas, who formerly had the Russia and Eurasia desk at the Defense Department under Obama. She famously mouthed off, on an episode of “Morning Joe,” about the Obama Administration’s “unmasking” and leaks of classified information to Congress in order to derail the Trump presidency. The UK cluster includes Anne Applebaum of the Washington Post, Ed Lucas of the Center for European Policy Analysis, Bill Browder and Vadim Kleiner from Browder’s operations, and, not surprisingly, Sir Andrew Wood, of Orbis Business Intelligence, the firm founded by Christopher Steele. All of these people have been up to their necks in the operations against Trump.

The War Party

At the center of the Institute’s very military operations is the use of propaganda directed at both the government and the general population, at the same time. Institute personnel lobby governments on behalf of war party policies against Russia and China, for example, in their disguise as private parties, while the Institute itself is being paid, as a think tank, by the very same government. At the same time, the Institute’s media contacts echo the entirely concocted government “debate” to the general population. This circular churning of the media sphere is what Obama’s former security advisor, Ben Rhodes, called creating a public opinion “echo chamber.” Rhodes cut his national security chops by helping with the production of the fraud known as the 9/11 Commission Report.

This methodology, fully implemented in the British propaganda and regime change operation against Putin—which began with the Alexander Litvinenko poisoning in 2006 and dramatically escalated in 2014—has created an astounding and deranged war fever against Putin in Britain and throughout Europe.

White House/Pete Souza

President Barack Obama with Ben Rhodes, Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications, in the Oval Office.

NATO

Christopher N. Donnelly, Director of the Institute for Statecraft.

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

The Integrity Institute is led by Christopher Donnelly, a very well-placed British military intelligence officer with an impressive career in NATO, the Ministry of Defence, and in military destabilization operations. Donnelly is obsessed with and paranoid about Russia. He laments that Britain and NATO are not equipped for war with Russia and proposes to change that by hyping the “Russia threat” both to governments and populations. Like an ever-more-deranged Doctor Strangelove, Donnelly’s prescriptions for responding to the “annexation” of Crimea in 2014, included mining Sevastopol harbor, attacking Russian satellites, and destruction of Russian fighter jets—all such actions being, of course, acts of war.

Donnelly argues that the British government needs a long term “vision” that will inspire people to fight a war, something which most sane people, of course, given the existence of nuclear weapons, are more than a little hesitant about. Institute papers in October of 2016 feature a discussion between Donnelly and Sir Gen. Richard Barrons, in which we find Donnelly wishing for some shocking, horrendous event to wake people up to the Russian threat.

The purloined documents posted by Anonymous show that Initiative personnel have targeted British Labor Party leader Jeremy Corbyn in a huge smear campaign, as well as the Scottish Nationalist Party and other domestic opponents of the powers-that-be in Britain. They also show that Simon Bracey-Lane, a young Institute fellow, infiltrated the Bernie Sanders campaign in Iowa in 2016, gathering information which, in all probability, was reported back to the Clinton campaign. The Institute also claimed that Green Party candidate Jill Stein was a Russian pawn, a claim echoed by Hillary Clinton.

Building for War in the U.S.

In the United States, according to Max Blumenthal’s terrific reporting, the Institute aims to create a new generation of “information warriors.” It has hired John Rendon, known as the “man who sold the Iraq War,” to train its “perception management” specialists. Rendon handled the publicity for Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress, along with other Washington PR firms. BuzzFeed, which infamously published the Christopher Steele dirty dossier on Donald Trump, is listed as a friendly media source. An itinerary for Chris Donnelly’s visit to the United States noted that Sebastian Gorka, Steve Bannon’s buddy who served with him at the White House, was scheduled for a breakfast meeting with Donnelly. Gorka’s wife, Katherine, who works for Homeland Security, is listed as an Institute contact. Gorka openly supports Vitezi Rend, a Hungarian of fascist pedigree.

Donnelly was shepherded around Washington by Anne Bader, a former Vice-President of the Atlantic Council, whose own intelligence pedigree is completely British. He visited the Center for Naval Analysis, a key contributor to the Lords’ Report, and the John McCain Institute’s Executive Director Kurt Volker, a rabid neo-con who serves as U.S. Special Representative to Ukraine. He also spent a lot of time at the State Department’s Global Engagement Center, where Todd Leventhal double dips as an employee while also serving the Institute.

At its first event in Seattle, Washington, U.S. Institute spokesman Simon Bracey-Lane, the same guy who infiltrated the Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign in 2016, read remarks from Chris Donnelly, noting that:

the West was no longer in a “peace time, rules-based environment. . . .” The conclusion is that we have to look for people who suit a wartime environment rather than peacetime.

Gage Skidmore

Sebastian Gorka

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

Blumenthal reports that active recruitment in the United States of such warriors is targeted on the alt-right formations in the circles of Bannon and Gorka, and young Trump supporters more generally, who entertain a positive view of Putin and Russia, as well as the general public.

How to Detect a ‘Putin Sympathizer’

The Institute recently opened major operations targeting Germany, seeking to smear and defame existing German networks who are urging peace with Russia, while attempting to build the same war fever they have created in Washington and London. According to Sputnik’s Kit Klarenberg, the Institute’s lead agent for Germany is Harold Elletson, who was exposed by the Observer as an MI6 agent in 1996. Klarenberg writes:

One can spot a “cultivated” Russlandversteher, [Russia sympathizer] Elletson suggests, when they make statements in accordance with one the Kremlin’s 21 alleged “key messages.”

These include: Germany and Russia had a “special relationship” and should return to it; Russia has legitimate interests and the West should respect them; the West deceived Russia over NATO expansion; “Wikileaks” and Snowden show the West has not been open in its dealings with Germany; the Georgian crisis was the result of Georgian aggression; Russia has a legitimate claim to Crimea; the Ukrainian revolution was actually a coup d’état; sanctions against Russia are counter-productive and will damage the German economy; the Syrian crisis cannot be solved without Russian support, which has been instrumental in stopping the spread of ISIS [Daesh].

In essence, any German who is remotely critical of NATO, the West, or prevailing Western global political narratives, or indeed government policy anywhere in the world negatively impacting Russia in any way—or who simply doesn’t view Russia as invariably villainous—is a stooge of Putin.

The Institute’s now-public documents include a proposal by the French company Lexfo, seeking funding for an offensive online influence campaign and includes a proposal for “counter-activism,” through “negative PR, legal actions, ethical hack back, etc.” It states that it can launch hundreds of news pieces a day and offers to “edit” Wikipedia articles.

Manipulating the Electorate

The French company’s proposal is of a piece with the recent scandal enveloping the cyber-warriors at New Knowledge, a U.S. corporation run by former Obama staffers, who were caught openly meddling in Alabama candidate Roy Moore’s campaign for the U.S. Senate. New Knowledge had been endorsed as certifiable experts on Russian disinformation activities in the 2016 U.S. elections by none other than the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee. Just when Mark Warner and his brother-in-crime Richard Burr were hotly trotting out their nonsense about Russian interference in the 2016 U.S elections recently, the New York Times published internal New Knowledge documents about actual election interference, not by Russia, but by New Knowledge!

Sen. Burr’s Instagram Page

Sens. Mark Warner (left) and Richard Burr.

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

Among the things these guys did in Alabama was to manufacture “a link between Roy Moore’s campaign and the Kremlin by claiming thousands of Roy Moore’s twitter followers were Russian bots.” The Internal Report cited by the Times contained the admission, “We orchestrated an elaborate ‘false flag’ operation that planted the idea that the Moore campaign was amplified on social media by a Russian botnet.” New Knowledge also performed lots of other dirty tricks to swing the election against Moore.

One of the New Knowledge “experts” is Jonathan Morgan, once a special advisor to the Obama White House and State Department and currently a contractor for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). Post-election, he ran his mouth off incessantly about how the Russians had engineered Hillary Clinton’s defeat. He told television viewers in Austin, Texas, that,

feelings of discontent were telltale signs of being duped by Russian disinformation. . . . If it makes you feel too angry or really provokes that type of almost tribal response, then it may be designed to manipulate you. . . . People should be concerned about things that encourage them to change their behavior.

The tranche of documents released by Anonymous on January 4 included a contract with Harod Associates to monitor social media and media response internationally to the Sergei Skripal poisoning and the British government response. The Institute labeled this and related activity, Operation Iris.

A previous Anonymous release of Institute documents included the name of Christopher Steele’s business associate and Sergei Skripal’s MI6 handler, Pablo Miller, on Christopher Donnelly’s general contact list. On this list are the political handler of Porton Down, the UK’s chemical weapon facility, Pablo Miller, the BBC, and representatives of the Ministry of Defense, the Foreign Office, and the U.S. Embassy.

The Institute’s media campaign about the Skripal poisoning was designed to create “popular demand” for even harsher actions against Russia by the British government, while planting articles all over the world blaming Putin for the Skripal poisoning. “Journalists” paid by the Institute published multiple articles in the British press supporting the “Putin did it, and it should be War” line promulgated by Operation Iris. The Initiative characterized the official British response as “weak.”

Now, the blogger “Moon of Alabama” points out that Ben Nimmo appears to be double-billing the Institute and the Atlantic Council’s Digital Research Lab for his various raves about the Russian threat. Nimmo is the author of the stunningly preposterous claim that Putin has weaponized jokes. He also authored a 2017 Guardian piece, with reporter Carole Cadwalladr, claiming that Russia influenced the Brexit decision through Facebook ads. Both appear to have been paid by the Initiative for their nonsense, even after Facebook revealed that Russia-linked accounts had spent a total of 97 cents on Brexit ads.

These absurd claims, of course, parallel those of Special Counsel Robert Mueller and the Senate Intelligence Committee about how a few thousand dollars in Russian Facebook ads—most of which occurred after the election, had little to say about Trump or Clinton, and a full quarter of which were seen by no one—swung the American election for Trump.

Back in 2013, another Institute “expert,” Mark Galeotti, invented a whole Russian military doctrine of hybrid cyber warfare out of thin air, attributing it to a paper written that year by Russian General Valery Gerasimov. After years as an article of faith, requiring expenditures of untold millions of defense dollars to defend against it, Galeotti himself finally retracted his invention in March 2018, following an earlier shredding of his claims by the U.S. Army’s Military Review journal.

The Larger Hybrid Warfare Apparatus

The now-exposed “Integrity Initiative” is only a small part of the massive British-spawned hybrid warfare apparatus targeting Russia, China, and dissident voices in target populations. This apparat received a new lease on life following the Ukraine coup in 2014 and the initial popular rumblings in Britain itself about Brexit. As Hillary Clinton herself observed, the British and the U.S. utterly failed to sell their coup in Ukraine as a triumph of democracy. Clinton attributed this to superior Russian social media and disinformation regimes. Reality would say, however, that the employment of Neo-Nazis as the coup’s mercenaries by the British and their American friends, led by Sen. John McCain and Victoria Nuland, had a major impact on the applause meter.

It is not incidental that one Christopher Steele served as a prominent adviser to Nuland and the Obama Administration concerning this coup, delivering over one hundred missives to the State Department relating to its operations.

CC/Myrtle26

Samantha Power and her husband Cass Sunstein.

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

In 2008, faced with managing the financial collapse and the revolt of the American population, the Obama Administration proposed to attack “conspiracy theories,” namely anything interrupting its preferred depiction to the American population of reality. Samantha Power’s husband, Cass Sunstein, memorialized these discussions in January 2008 Harvard and University of Chicago law school publications. He largely focused on debunking what he called fake conspiracy theories about 9/11. Citing the arch British agent, and godfather of George Soros, Sir Karl Popper, Sunstein advocated direct government intervention in Internet chat rooms in the form of “cognitive infiltration,” suggesting that the resulting cognitive dissonance would render any political danger from conspiracy theories politically impotent. Sunstein proposed that private individuals fed with government information systematically intervene in Internet conspiracy forums.

The recent fake narratives produced by Q Anon and the targeting of Trump supporters just before the midterms, in the form of Pokémon video game-type clues about the coup, such as the fake claim that Robert Mueller is really on Trump’s side, are a vivid example of such “cognitive infiltration.”

British ‘Warfare of the Mind’

I will now report on how the present propaganda kingdom came about, beginning in 2009 when Obama and the British engaged NATO to set up a mechanism to control opinion in the trans-Atlantic community—the NATO Centre for Strategic Communications, which kicked into high gear after the Ukraine coup. The Integrity Initiative came into existence in 2015 as a result. This escalated even further, of course, when Trump got elected, and the British and their American toadies went crazy.

Now, with funding spigots turned on for this in the billions of dollars on both sides of the Atlantic, it is possible to name 60 organizations dedicated to information psyops against the population of the United States. That’s just the public side. Reporter Max Blumenthal compares it to Operation Mockingbird, the collaboration of intelligence agencies, compromised politicians, and the national news media which employed over 400 American journalists in the service of the CIA during the Cold War, and he’s right about that.

The Steele Dossier and the Integrity Institute involve the same British intelligence networks revolving around Sir Richard Dearlove, the former head of MI6. Dr. Victor Madeira, one of the key staffers at the Integrity Institute used to work directly for Dearlove and Sir Christopher Andrew at the Cambridge Intelligence Forum.

Sir Andrew Wood, the former UK Ambassador to Russia, Dearlove friend, and advisor to Christopher Steele’s Orbis Business Intelligence Company, is listed as a Specialist Team Member of the Integrity Initiative. Drew Foxall of the Henry Jackson Society, where Dearlove is the leading light, is listed as “inner core” of the Initiative.

Both the Integrity Initiative and Christopher Steele traffic in intelligence lies targeted at Russia, and employ media echo chambers to legitimate these lies through media retainers and witting government accomplices. Among the specializations which have been listed, at one point or another, as special skills of Steele’s Orbis Business Intelligence are “creating public opinion groundswells,” and “delivering targeted political campaigns.” Richard Dearlove is an old hand at such operations. While leading MI6, Dearlove infamously vouched for the doctored dossier which said that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, collaborating with then CIA Director George Tenet on one of the 20th century’s most deadly intelligence lies.

Steele’s History

Christopher Steele has the same, albeit less developed, pedigree. He was the case officer in MI6 for Alexander Litvinenko, a Russian defector who worked for the Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky and who took up residence in Britain. In 2006, Litvinenko was murdered, using polonium poison. Steele immediately blamed Litvenenko’s murder on Putin, although his employer, Berezovsky’s organized crime networks, were much more likely the killers. Litvinenko’s death-bed statement blaming Putin was broadcast throughout the world after being massaged by Bell, Pottinger—the disgraced British public relations firm famous for such contracts as its $540 million effort for the CIA, making fake al-Qaeda propaganda films for the war in Iraq.

The British government didn’t bite on Steele’s claims originally, and instead indicted a sole Russian for the crime, not the Russian state. In the wake of the Ukraine coup, the Litvinenko case was revived, for propaganda purposes. The new British review lasted two years, ending in January 2016, and charged that Russia and Putin were “probably” responsible for the murder. The report used the word “probably” 35 times with respect to its major findings. Litvinenko’s father blames organized crime associates of Berezovsky for the murder. Berezovsky himself was suicided in 2013.

Left: CC/Richter Frank-Jurgen; right: CSPAN

Left: Alexander Downer; right:Stefan A. Halper

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

Dearlove mentored Steele in Orbis’ operations and specifically worked with him on the Trump dossier operation, vouching for and hyping Steele’s claims throughout the Five Eyes intelligence community. Dearlove is also associated with the British intelligence firm Hakluyt & Company. Stefan Halper, the MI6/CIA asset deployed to entrap Trump campaign volunteers George Papadopoulos and Carter Page in London, is an advisor to Hakluyt and a long-time professional colleague of Steele. Alexander Downer, the Australian Ambassador—the guy who tried to entrap George Papadopoulos—also was on Hakluyt’s Board. Luke Harding, who wrote the book Collusion to salvage Steele’s reputation and recently got caught completely fabricating a story in the Guardian about Julian Assange and Paul Manafort, works for both Hakluyt and Orbis. Similarly, Pablo Miller, the MI6 handler of Sergei Skripal, has worked with Steele since their days at MI6 and also worked with Hakluyt.

Finally, the mysterious Maltese professor, Joseph Mifsud, whose job was to flip Papadopoulos by giving him a job in London and then, through him, offer the Trump Campaign “access to Putin’s inner circle,” runs in the very same intelligence networks. Claire Smith, the member of the UK Joint Intelligence Committee famously photographed with and working with Mifsud, reportedly worked with Chris Steele in Afghanistan.

The Actual ‘Get Trump’ Operation

With all that in mind, how should we be looking at the extraordinary operation the British ran to defeat the U.S. political candidate Donald Trump? And that is what it was.

The first point to be made is that all of the chronologies of this operation that you have been presented with are off, by months.

According to the way you have frequently heard it reported, the FBI opened an investigation in July 2016, at the same time that Christopher Steele began working with Fusion GPS. Fusion GPS was working with the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton, after it was hired in April by the Democratic National Committee. Fusion had previously worked for the Republicans against Trump. The dirty and corrupt Justice Department got a FISA warrant against Carter Page by lying to the FISA court in October. All the time, two FBI agents, one an attorney the other the case agent on the Trump Russia organization, who were engaged in a hot extramarital affair, were communicating over their cell phones that they hated Trump and were collaborating on an insurance policy to prevent his election. After the election, the Steele dossier was made public by some weird operation involving BuzzFeed, James Clapper, James Comey, and John McCain.

Isn’t that kind of the basic scenario you have heard endlessly reported?

That is only a minuscule part of the actual story. Christopher Steele and Dearlove had pre-written, in many respects, what became the Trump dossier in something called Project Charlemagne, a dossier about how the Russians had manipulated the June 2016 Brexit vote. Steele was listed as a paid FBI informant as of February 2016. As of March 2016, over at CIA headquarters, John Brennan convened a task force—questionable under U.S. law—and was receiving intelligence from the British about Trump, screening it, and then forwarding it to the FBI.

You can read my report revising the chronology based on what we can now put together. Some of it involves the hacked emails of State Department official Robert Otto, considered to be the U.S.’s biggest current expert on Russia, who was communicating throughout 2016 with British intelligence and key actors in the coup, including John McCain’s friend David Kramer, who leaked the Steele dossier to BuzzFeed in coordination with British intelligence, James Clapper and Jim Comey.

Most of the operation against Trump, as former House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence chairman Devin Nunes has emphasized, came out of the State Department, and was particularly overseen by John Winer and Victoria Nuland. The State Department is the center of British operations in the United States. In October 2016, one month before the election, Christopher Steele held a full-scale briefing at State, handing out stuff to select journalists and others present. You can read the revised chronology in “Part III: A British Intelligence Fraud Creates the Coup Against Donald Trump,” which is the conclusion of my three-part report.

The public face of this operation, the cutout and sacrificial lamb, was Fusion GPS, with the actual controllers of the operation sitting in London. Bruce Ohr, the now demoted third man in the U.S. Department of Justice Criminal Division hierarchy, is married to Nellie Ohr, who worked for Fusion. Both Ohrs had a longstanding relationship with Christopher Steele and Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson, based on investigations of Russian organized crime dating back decades. Neil King, Jr., also works for Fusion. He’s married to Shailagh Murray, Barack Obama’s senior policy adviser at the White House, having previously worked for years for Vice-President Biden.

Otherwise, most of Fusion’s staff is composed of former reporters for major national newspapers, who know how to feed tips and hot stories to their former friends or those they hire to put bylines on the propaganda ordered up by their clients. A major client for Fusion’s products has always been law enforcement. Fusion is a major drop point for feeding and amplifying out stories planted by the intelligence community to its network of journalists. Fusion has had a “professional relationship” with at least Christopher Steele’s Orbis Business Intelligence in Britain since 2010, if not with other entities associated with Sir Richard Dearlove.

Outright Lies

What I really want to emphasize here is just how preposterous the Steele Report actually is. The dossier itself is flat-out, totally and utterly false—a stinking hideous fraud. Christopher Steele, in all his subsequent testimony, describes it as “unverified raw intelligence” and refuses to vouch for its accuracy. Even its most fervent champions, such as Michael Isikoff, who met personally with Steele in September 2016, now doubt the document, which provided the central legends of Russiagate.

Left: Wikipedia; right: World Economic Forum/swiss-image.ch/Photo Michele Limina

Left: Tom Steyer; right: George Soros

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

After the election, Tom Steyer, George Soros, and other Silicon Valley billionaires provided some $70 million dollars in an attempt to put meat on Steele’s work product. A big part of this exercise, I think, is to create enough atmospherics and smoke to prevent the public from concluding that those who believe this crap are stark raving mad and belong in mental institutions rather than having any say in our government. That is also a large part of the function assigned to Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

To believe that the dossier is true requires you to assume that Christopher Steele had some 32 sources inside the Russian government. What they allegedly told him is specific enough in time and content to identify them. You have to further assume that the British government, therefore, was willing to roll up this entire network, since the intention was for the dossier’s wild claims to be published as widely as possible.

By all accounts, Britain and the United States, together, do not have 32 highly placed sources inside the Russian government, nor would they ever make them public in this way or with this very sloppy tradecraft. The dossier uses aspects of readily available public information, such as the sale of 19 percent of the energy company Rosneft (the alleged bribe offered to Carter Page for the United States to lift sanctions) to concoct a fictional narrative of high crimes and misdemeanors.

The January 2 issue of the Federalist magazine carries a significant article by Lee Smith, who contends, with documentary evidence, that much of the dossier is simply drawn from public source postings, some of which are Ukrainian and some Russian, with embellishments by Steele to change actual events into nefarious crimes. In other words, there are no real Russian sources. Others have made similar comments about the dossier’s most salacious and incendiary allegation, that Trump cavorted with prostitutes in Moscow who urinated on the bed in which the Obamas had slept. This seems to be simply a rejiggered revival of 2009 British propaganda stories about Silvio Berlusconi spending the night with a prostitute in a hotel room in Rome “defiling” Putin’s bed. No one ever said that the British are original.

So, the story is long and a little complicated, but a real story nonetheless. I’m open for questions.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE WEBCAST

The Underlying Positive World Dynamic

the British Empire Tries To Hide from You

This is the edited transcript of the Schiller Institute’s New Paradigm Webcast of January 11, 2019. A video of this webcast is available.

Harley Schlanger: Hello, I’m Harley Schlanger with the Schiller Institute. Welcome to our weekly webcast with our founder and President, Helga Zepp-LaRouche. This is our first webcast of 2019, and this will be the year in which geopolitics will be eliminated as a strategy for controlling world politics and economics.

I think that’s clear in the political strategic situation, where we’re seeing very significant developments in the last days. I’d like to start with a couple of them, Helga. The meeting between Kim Jong-un and Xi Jinping is especially important because of all the nonsense that’s been hurled against Trump, against the Chinese, against the North Koreans, but it does appear as though this meeting has put the “Singapore Model” back into play. Is that your assessment?

Two Paradigms in a Time of Turmoil

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: If you only listen to or read the mainstream media, you would think the whole world is just a complete mess, that there is no ordering principle, that there’s a crazy man in the White House, that the financial system is going haywire, and the European Union is in complete collapse.

In reality, while all of these destabilizations are going on, there is actually an underlying positive dynamic. I have pointed this out in my short remarks for the New Year, that people should not lose the long arc of historical developments if they want to get a correct assessment. Because if you only go by the daily so-called “news” and we will come to the problem of that a little bit later—then you will actually fall for what in large part has become psychological warfare operations against you.

We will discuss this in the context of the role of the British trying to destabilize the emergence of the new paradigm, which is developing.

I think it is really important that people see that, when, last year, I called for the end of geopolitics, and people thought to themselves, “What does geopolitics have to do with me?” But look now at how the Trump Presidency, despite all of its problems and difficulties, has managed to work in a certain sense in parallel, and in some points in tangent, with the Belt and Road Initiative, changing the international environment for the better. One of the clear points is the situation in North Korea; another one is the China-Japan rapprochement; the relationship between China and India; India and Pakistan, new developments in the Middle East, Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa—all of these areas are positive developments underway which you would never get if you just listen to or read the mainstream media.

Now, to mention what you just raised: Kim Jong-un’s visit to China, his fourth in 12 months, saw lengthy discussions with Xi Jinping. The general assessment, even though not totally confirmed and explicitly stated, is that this is all a prelude to a second Trump-Kim meeting to occur fairly soon.

CC

North Korea’s leader Kim Jong-un (center) visiting a unit of the North Korean Army.

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

Also, we know the situation between North and South Korea is actually on a good way. I think that the New Silk Road Spirit and the Belt and Road economic dimension involving North Korea, South Korea, Russia, and China, in particular, and with the role of President Trump working to get that settled and allow forward motion toward unification of the two Koreas and a peace treaty is definitely one of the bright developments that people should be really happy about. One of the potential trigger points for a catastrophe of humanity is in the process of being eliminated and replaced by a positive concept of cooperation. So, this is quite good.

Schlanger: And we’ve also been getting relatively positive reports on the three-day meeting that took place in Beijing between U.S. trade representatives and Chinese trade representatives. This could be the start putting U.S.-China relationship back on a much better footing.

Zepp-LaRouche: Yes, especially if you keep in mind, the geopolitical forces on both sides of the Atlantic who do not want China to be prosperous. That is a futile effort, of course, because the idea that you can suppress the rise of a country of 1.4 billion people which is more or less doing the right economic policy, is just completely ludicrous. And the real target remains the intention of China to become a world leader in several categories of science and technology, the famous Made in China 2025 plan. In light of that, it’s very good that the Strait relationship between the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of China seems to be back on track. Again, I think that was the result of the personal relationship between Trump and Xi, and their personal meeting on the sidelines of the G20 in Argentina.

I’m not yet saying this is all resolved, because there are many Damocles Swords hanging all over the situation, but one also has to note that a big catastrophe, namely a real clash between the two largest economies in the world, seems to be at least on a course to be avoided. So that’s a second positive sign.

U.S. Army

U.S. troops assigned to the 3rd Cavalry Regiment operate the DroneDefender, a directed-energy device, in support of Operation Inherent Resolve in Iraq and Syria.

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

Schlanger: And another situation which may not be fully resolved either, but which is moving in the right direction, is Syria. It was reported that the United States is beginning to move some military equipment out of Syria. National Security Advisor John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo have both been in the region, seemingly putting out conflicting statements about the President’s intentions—but Trump came out, however, and told everyone who would pay attention, that U.S. policy is to get out. Meanwhile, Trump’s talking about working with the Russians and Turkey—even Iran. So, this looks like the Astana process is moving in the right direction, and it looks as though Trump really does intend to pull the troops out!

Zepp-LaRouche: Yes. The Astana process is the only road to resolve the situation, because the conflict between Turkey and the United States concerning the Kurds remains. The Kurds seem to have now asked the Assad government for resolving this problem, which would be the best thing, because if you have a unified Syria, and a unified government with a Constitutional process under way, and elections coming up, and the Syrian people taking care of their own destiny, the large neighbors, especially Russia, Turkey, Iran, being the guarantors of the whole process as it was defined in the Astana process, is the really good way to resolve this terrible, horrible situation in Southwest Asia.

The same people who were yelling “Ami [Americans] go home!” just a couple of years ago, have been the first ones to demand that the United States should remain the world’s policeman. The howling irony here is that with all the difficulties Trump has, in terms of the opponents of his policies in his own administration—the Democrats—he is indeed making good on his election campaign promises, that he will end these permanent wars of his predecessors. This very, very good and everyone should be happy about it. I think people really have to constantly think: “Why do I now believe things and say things which in a certain sense go completely against what I believed only a couple of years ago?”

I think the United States is indeed moving to pull out of Syria. There are also signs that President Trump intends to move out of Afghanistan and go for a diplomatic solution. I think these are very good developments and anybody who is not a complete moron should be happy about them.

Schlanger: Well, apparently, there are lot of morons in both parties in the United States!

The other really positive development comes out of China’s space program: Chang’e-4 has landed. It released a rover. And this is generating optimism not just in China, but around the world.

CNSA

Two video clips from China’s Chang’e-4 lander during descent, showing (below) the moment it landed on the Moon’s far side on Jan. 3, 2019.

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

China Leaps to the Far Side of the Moon

Zepp-LaRouche: Yes, optimism, but also an amount of shock. As a matter of fact, one could almost speak about a similar effect as the “Sputnik shock,” when in 1957 the Soviets put the first artificial satellite Sputnik-1 into a low elliptical Earth orbit. Today, given the effectiveness of media control in suppressing any such positive scientific developments, the world was relatively surprised by the fact that the Chinese did indeed manage to land both a lander and a rover on the far side of the Moon, very smoothly without any problem, and are now in the process of investigating the environment around these vehicles.

This has never happened. This is a first, and the Chinese just wrote space history. We know that the aim of China’s mission, is not only to get a much better insight into the far distances of our galaxy, because the far side of the Moon has many advantages, including the fact that it’s protected from a lot of Earth’s noise and radiation, so that all the instruments work much better; but China’s aim also is to eventually mine helium-3 on the far side of the Moon as a fuel for a future thermonuclear fusion economy here on Earth.

This is the most advanced achievement any nation has done in terms of space research and spacefaring. Naturally, some people tried to dampen it and say the Chinese are still years behind in terms of manned space travel—well, the only problem is, the last manned lunar travel was something like 40 years ago! So many people think that unless the West makes a super effort, they wouldn’t be even able to replicate the Apollo Moon landing 40 years ago.

So, I think this is really good: As the Chinese have said, this is a step for all of mankind. It shows you what mankind can do, what human creativity is able to do, once ‘able to focus on what Xi always calls the “shared community for the future of mankind.” The best option is for all the major spacefaring nations, and those they invite to participate, namely, countries from the developing sector, to put their efforts together to explore this future of the human species being a spacefaring species and not just bound to the planet Earth.

Unfortunately, the forces trying to sabotage all this are still at work: There is this infamous 2011 federal budget clause introduced by Virginia Rep. Frank Wolf, which bans NASA and the Office of Science and Technology Policy from bilateral cooperation with China. One of the really stupid, and dangerous developments, was the pressure placed on NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine, causing him not only to postpone the visit of Roscosmos head Dmitry Rogozin to the Johnson Space Center, but to cancel it altogether. This is just one of the elements, where you really see that this is not yet a fought-out battle at all.

Sir Richard Billing Dearlove, OBE.

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

The British Come Out of the Shadows

Schlanger: You mentioned earlier that we’ll be talking about the special role of the British in poisoning relations with China, with Russia, and also in targetting Trump. There’s been a very significant breakthrough in the recent weeks, which is still not getting much coverage in the West, but it’s going to have to, which goes to the point that we have been identifying from the beginning—that unless you look at the role of the British, British intelligence, the British ruling class, the British Empire, its spawning of neo-liberalism and neo-conservativism—unless you identify that, you’re not going to solve this problem of geopolitics.

Some interesting comments have recently come out of the House of Lords. And British Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson is now talking about the British “going back to East of Suez.” This is just classic imperial policy, but it comes out in the form of manipulation, especially against Russia, with the exposé of the Institute for Statecraft and its spawn the Integrity Initiative.

Helga, what’s your understanding of this? I think that in order to win this fight, it is to crucial to expose where this is coming from.

Zepp-LaRouche: I would actually advise you, our audience, to really make an effort to read the transcript of Barbara Boyd’s January 10 Fireside Chat discussion, “The British Come out of the Shadows,” available as a three-part series at www.larouchepac.com. The true story of how far these bad actors have gone to subvert hearts and minds all around the world is mind-boggling.

What Boyd documents, without any question of doubt, is that the whole Russiagate coup against Trump was not primarily an operation involving the Obama administration and the Clinton campaign, and the heads of intelligence of the United States—they were a happy part of it. But that the whole operation was designed by British intelligence, years ago! As a matter of fact, the first traces of this go back even before Trump was anywhere in the vicinity of the White House.

Boyd takes off on two points in particular, which I think the educated time witness—namely you—should not miss in order to form your own judgment.

On Dec. 18, the British House of Lords published a report, “UK Foreign Policy in a Shifting World Order,”which I think is really, absolute “must” reading for anybody who wants to understand this strategic situation. In that report, the Lords blatantly say that maybe the U.S.-British “special relationship” is barely surviving the first Trump administration, that it will not survive a second Trump administration, and that Britain will not survive if the trend in the United States remains in the same direction as what Trump stands for.

One of the key figures in this plot, former MI6 head Sir Richard Dearlove, goes around everywhere saying not to worry, because Trump will only be a one-term President. Now, how he knows that is another question. This House of Lords report makes clear that the key objective for the British Empire is to prevent what my husband Lyndon LaRouche has defined as being the only solution to the world crisis, namely, an agreement among the four superpowers, United States, Russia, China, and India.

Concerning Russia, they say, it’s important that it be contained, with the implication that eventually Russia will be managed through regime change. With China, the idea is “if you can’t beat them, then join them.” To that end the British have quite successfully managed to pretend that they want to be part of the Belt and Road Initiative, they joined the AIIB. So there, the concept is to manipulate the whole thing from inside these institutions.

Concerning India, which the British Empire still regards as its “crown jewel” colony, the idea is to make sure that tensions between China and India remain. They use diplomatic language for all of this, but if you know how to read between the lines, that’s what comes out.

They say, the danger to the future of the British Empire is exactly this Four Power agreement.

The Integrity Initiative

Boyd points out that when the House of Lords defined this policy for the British Empire, the way it’s being implemented is through this thing which has recently appeared courtesy of various leaks, namely, an outfit called “Integrity Initiative,” which is really a top-down operation of the British Foreign Office, British military intelligence, and MI6.

The way it works is that in every country, in Europe, Canada, European countries—they’re now moving to the Middle East—is via so-called “clusters of influence.” In these “clusters,” they have politicians, journalists, scientists, moderators, and such people, who are responsible for putting out propaganda lines, with which they try to manipulate both governments, and also shape public opinion by driving an anti-Russia hysteria, by appealing to the instincts of the population to demonize everything which has to do with Russia. Boyd documents that these are the same people, name by name, who are the ones behind the coup against Trump, and also the ones who are behind the anti-Russia campaigns.

Left: Dept. of State; right: CC/Matthew W. Hutchins

Left: Ben Rhodes, Obama’s Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications. Right: Cass Sunstein, Obama’s Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

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

In Germany they have identified 21 assumptions they want to eliminate. They say that as long as the population believes in these 21 points, this is terrible and it has to be changed: For example, the belief that Russia has legitimate interests—that is a belief which must be eradicated; or the belief that the West was involved in the coup in Ukraine. There are 21 such beliefs. They then they describe how, through “nudging,” which is a notion developed by Cass Sunstein at the time, or what Ben Rhodes called a “public information echo chamber,” that you use propaganda to manipulate the situation until everybody believes Russia is a monster, Putin is a dictator, Xi is a dictator, and the world is run by an alliance of dictators.

I would like everyone to read the report by Barbara Boyd, because once you read it, you will then realize that what most people—perhaps even you—think is “ordinary” news coming through the “mainstream” channels, is all part of a gigantic manipulation scheme.

Now, with my remarks here, I have, by their logic, proven that I’m a Putin follower. Well, I can assure you, I am not. I am quite an independent thinker. However, according to this psychological warfare, if you use certain terms, that proves you are in the camp of the Russians.

I think it’s really important for mental hygiene that everyone listening to my voice or reading this transcript carefully read Boyd’s report and look at how it all works, because there is only one medicine to neutralize this, and that is that you have a clear understanding that by the end of World War II, British intelligence studied Reich Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels, with an intention to, as they called it at the time, to “out-Goebbels Goebbels.” And indeed, this is exactly what they are doing today. Once again, I really encourage you read Boyd’s report and spread it as far as possible.

Schlanger: Helga, it’s so bizarre. There’s an operation called “PropOrNot,” one of the agencies that’s supposed to police Twitter. They put out a list of words that purport to show that the people who use them are probably Russian agents: words such as “neoconservative,” “corporatist,” “imperialist,” “establishment.” Someone responded to this, saying that that must mean that Irving Kristol and William Kristol, the two most prominent neo-conservatives, are Russian agents, because they coined the term “neo-conservative.” That’s how bizarre it is.

Meanwhile, In Europe

We have a couple more things I want to get to that are crucial in this context. In Germany, which you mentioned, there are two new reports out from the BDI industry association and from Handelsblatt, which essentially are new attacks on China, at a point at which there have been a series of conferences in Germany, in which sections of German industry, and some smaller businesses seem to be welcoming China. Aren’t these reports part of the same fabric of disinformation and lies?

Zepp-LaRouche: And it’s also very stupid. If you cut off the branch of the tree on which you are sitting, it’s won’t be very good for either your limbs or your rear end, as you’ll yourself the victim on your clever cut. I think this is really idiotic, because European situation could not be more chaotic—it probably will be more chaotic, but it is already in complete flux. You have the tensions between Italy and France escalating; the Italian government is doing a lot of correct things; they just took over the Genoa-based Banca Carige bank which was in jeopardy, in order to prevent a European Union bail-out/bail-in operation, and in that way asserting a certain degree of national sovereignty.

The fight between the French and the Italian government is really escalating. A couple of months ago, French President Emmanuel Macron had called the Italians the “leprosy of Europe” because of the refugee situation, and now the Italians have said they don’t want to be lectured by France, because the only reason why Italy has a migrant problem is because of the French colonialist policies in Africa. That tone is not exactly one of friendship.

The situation in France is much more interesting than most people think, because the Yellow Vests is a very interesting and serious development: These are people who are not so far linked with any political party, but who respond to the fact that the injustice of the present economic system is just not bearable by them anymore. And this is not going to go away. Similar feelings exist in the people who voted for Trump, the people who voted the Brexit vote, and also the people who voted this present Italian government in. It’s generally part of an ongoing global revolt against the neo-liberal policies, the same policies that British intelligence, which we just mentioned before, tries to say do not exist, but rather, they say, it’s the “economic anxieties” of the common people. But, in fact, it is the result of the neo-liberal policies.

Not very far away is the European Parliament elections in May. We have indications that, for example, in Austria, there may even be a referendum on Austria’s membership in the EU, because many people say that in the 20 years that Austria has been a member, it has not benefitted; it just prevents an independent policy of Austria.

So rather than recognizing the advantage of cooperating with the Belt and Road Initiative, especially in such projects as the reconstruction of Syria, and the development of Africa, you have these really backward tendencies which have captured the leadership of the German Industrial Association (BDI) as well, and unfortunately also parts of the Christian Democratic Union’s Economic Council, which is putting out anti-China propaganda pieces.

But there are also many people who also listen to the Schiller Institute and understand that the future of German industry is to work with Russia, and with China, and we will escalate our campaign in this coming year to make sure that everybody can see what is at stake—a New Paradigm or the collapse of civilization. Shaping a positive future for humanity is at stake, not just some economic business interests.

gob.mx

To heal Mexico’s youth from a life of crime, illiteracy and unemployment, Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador has initiated a full employment program called Youth Building the Future.

LaRouche’s 1982 Operation Juárez—a proposal for collaboration, expecially in long-term investment in infrastructure among the nations of the Western Hemisphere.

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

LaRouche’s Operation Juárez & Dope, Inc.

Schlanger: Helga, we’re a little short on time, but I do want to get your thoughts on what’s happening with this hypocritical opportunism of the Democrats in the United States, drawing a line on the border wall and border security. What people are missing is that there’s a bigger question here, which is that it does appear that Mexico’s new President, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, is working with the Trump administration on some economic development prospects. There’s a new fund that’s been established, and things are moving forward. In fact, it looks like there is the potential to revive one of the great proposals of your husband, Operation Juárez.

Zepp-LaRouche: Yes. AMLO, as the new Mexican President is sometimes called, is pursuing something which one could call an FDR reflex, by saying that the only way the migrant issue can be solved is through economic development, investment in infrastructure and other projects in Mexico, but also similar investments in the other Central American countries. There is actually a cooperation between Trump and López Obrador along these lines.

Now, it’s not just migrants, but associated with that, is the drug epidemic in the U.S., which is completely out of control, which Trump is also extremely concerned with.

Many decades ago, my husband designed a policy that I would really like to put on the table again. In 1878, he commissioned a study called Dope, Inc., a proposal that with modern technology, utilizing the resources of NASA and by other means, every single square centimeter of drug production in the appropriate countries could be spotted along with the trade routes involved. The laundering of drug money through the banks could be dried out, and in that way, we would be able to completely destroy the drug traffic, especially when you combine such a program with Glass-Steagall.

As many UN officials have pointed out, the entire Western financial system would have collapsed a long time ago, but for the laundering of the drug money. So, the best approach to deal with this, is to go with the Dope, Inc. NASA, high-technology approach, stop the money-laundering, through Glass-Steagall, shut the whole casino aspect down; and then go for an FDR economic reconstruction policy, not only for Central America, Latin America, but also for the United States, itself.

It’s an ongoing battle and given the fact that the partial U.S. federal government shutdown is still going on and the conflict still exists, I think it’s time to discuss such proposals, because they actually would solve the problem on a much, much higher level.

Schlanger: From our discussion today, it’s evident that it’s an extremely complex situation, a fascinating one, but one for which there are solutions. I encourage all of our viewers to start organizing your friends to tune in each week to this webcast, and to go to our website, https://schillerinstitute.com, because we’re the one voice out there that has historically and consistently fought for the principles of the American System, of the Classical Renaissance, and to put an end to the dirty operations run by the British Empire.

Helga, thanks for joining us today, and we’ll see you next week.

Zepp-LaRouche: I hope so.

LAROUCHE’S OPERATION JUAREZ

The Potential for a New Era

in U.S.-Mexico Relations Now

by Harley Schlanger

Presidencia de la República

Andrés Manuel López Obrador, speaking at his inauguration as President of Mexico, Dec. 1, 2018.

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

Jan. 11—The partial federal government shutdown in the United States continues, with no sign of compromise from President Donald Trump on his insistence that border security requires physical barriers, given that law enforcement cannot police two thousand miles of border. The uninhabited border areas, not controlled by law enforcement, are controlled—by criminal gangs. The President made this a major campaign issue in 2016, and again in the 2018 midterm elections, insisting that more physical barriers are necessary to ensure border security, in order to protect the country from drug trafficking and other crime, as well as criminal gangs’ control of illegal immigration.

While media attention has focused on using this stalemate for demagoguery against the President, the same media have studiously ignored the other side of the equation. A process of negotiation is underway between Trump administration officials and their counterparts in the new Mexican government on a cooperative economic development policy, which is focused on the alleviation of the grinding poverty and the growing climate of violence fostered by the drug cartels and criminal gangs in Mexico and Central America. Those are the main causes of the continuing uncontrolled migration to the United States.

On December 1, the day of the inauguration of Andrés Manuel López Obrador as President of Mexico, a joint declaration was signed by AMLO (as López Obrador is known), with the Presidents of Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras (the “Northern Triangle” nations), to support a “Comprehensive Development Plan” for the region. Of the initial $20 billion pledged, 75% of the funds will go to projects that will create jobs, and the other 25% will go to border control and law enforcement. The Trump administration is said to have pledged $5.8 billion for Central American countries, and $4.8 billion for projects in southern Mexico. Investing in the creation of productive jobs, particularly in modernizing infrastructure, can begin to alleviate poverty, and give hope to people who otherwise believe they must leave their own countries to protect their families and secure a future.

Following a meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Mexican Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard responded: “I think this is good news, very good news for Mexico.” A phone conversation that AMLO described as “respectful and friendly,” took place between AMLO and Trump on December 13, to discuss the programs for job creation in Mexico and the Northern Triangle countries. In previous discussions, they had addressed the importance of job creation and infrastructure development as key to addressing the root causes of mass immigration.

White House/Shealah Craighead

President Trump meets with North Korea’s leader Kim Jong-un in Singapore, June 12, 2018.

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

The ‘Singapore Model’

Just as the media and Trump opponents have derided Trump’s peace-making with North Korea’s leader Kim Jong-un during and after their summit in Singapore, these same forces have loudly expressed their incredulity that Trump would seriously consider a cooperative alliance with Mexico.

The “Singapore Model,” as Helga Zepp-LaRouche has called it, shows that potential adversaries can overcome years of hostility by engaging in dialogue towards cooperation that can offer mutually beneficial results. North Korea’s Kim was initially addressed in very unflattering language by Trump and was the target of frequent Twitter blasts. Mexico has been similarly subjected to harsh rhetoric from Trump in the past. Progress with North Korea was related to economic pledges from Trump, backed by China, Russia, and South Korea, to bring North Korea into the Belt and Road Initiative. With Mexico, Trump’s promise to voters to build a wall along the entire 2,000-mile border, to keep out “bad people, rapists and drug pushers,” was a staple of his campaign, as it still is today.

However, at the same time, Trump has expressed openness to working with Mexico to resolve differences. He has repeatedly emphasized that one of the biggest problems in U.S.-Mexico relations has been the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which he derided as a bad deal for the United States, Canada and Mexico, and vowed to rewrite, or abrogate it. On December 1, leaders of the United States, Canada and Mexico signed a reworked trade deal, the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), to go into effect in 2020, which is not a free trade agreement and is totally different from NAFTA, instead protecting jobs and increasing wages.

The free trade agreements of the Clinton, Bush and Obama presidencies accelerated the deindustrialization of the United States, which was the deliberate intent of their authors, and was a significant factor in the loss of more than six million U.S. manufacturing jobs since 2000. Trump has repeatedly pledged to those former industrial workers, who were victimized by the shutdowns caused by the free trade agreements, that he will negotiate trade agreements to bring back American manufacturing jobs. He has begun to deliver on these promises.

In his inaugural address, Mexico’s López Obrador demonstrated that he also rejects the policies imposed by the global bankers, their neo-liberal economists, and their debt-collection agencies such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the International Monetary Fund. President López Obrador forcefully attacked the trade agreements of his predecessors, asserting that the free market and free trade policies of the last two decades have been “a disaster, a calamity” for Mexico, increasing income inequality and spurring the mass migration of impoverished workers. By changing the economic policies of his nation, by rejecting the false promises of a quick fix from “free trade,” he is committed to creating industrial jobs in Mexico, making it possible to fulfill what he has called “a dream that I want to see become a reality . . . that nobody will want to go to work in the United States anymore.”

This was a major focus of his New Year’s Day message, in which he announced that “all youth, all of them, are going to have work and schooling.” The López Obrador administration is launching a new program that will provide funding for the training of unemployed youth to prepare them for work as apprentices. AMLO announced:

[Mexican youth] are going to work in workshops; they are going to work in factories, in businesses. They are going to be working in the countryside, in the cities; with their parents, with their relatives, but working, being educated, qualifying themselves for work—all youth.

In taking this course, he is addressing the same acute problem that exists throughout the trans-Atlantic sector, of young people who have been robbed of a future. They lack education and training, and have been unable to find decent jobs. López Obrador made clear that this idea of education, training and full employment came from FDR:

I have had this idea since I read how President Franklin Delano Roosevelt pulled the United States out of the 1930’s crisis. What did he do in a tremendous economic crisis? He decided to put the whole U.S. people to work. And he decided to put young people to work. He paid them each a dollar a day, this for every young person. But his idea was full employment. That is, a job for everyone. That idea stuck in my head, because Roosevelt lifted the United States out of the crisis, and for me he was therefore if not the best president, one of the best which the United States has had. . . . Now we are going to do something similar: All young people to work.

CC/Alexander H.M. Cascone

A view of Salina Cruz Bay, the largest and most important port in the state of Oaxaca on Mexico’s Pacific Coast.

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

As a first step toward realizing this dream, on December 23 AMLO announced a $400 million development plan for the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, which includes $151 million to expand and modernize the ports of Salina Cruz on the Pacific Ocean, and Coatzacoalcos on the Gulf of Mexico, upgrading rail transport and highways that connect the two ports, and also building a new gas pipeline.

These development programs for Mexico and the Northern Triangle of Central America, if supported fully by the United States, will have a major effect on reducing the causes of migrant flows. Such programs will be another major step in securing the border if combined with a parallel effort to cripple the drug cartels—which requires shutting down the drug money laundering conducted largely by Wall Street, the City of London, and the unregulated, offshore banks.

LaRouche’s Operation Juárez

The steps taken thus far, while promising, fall short of the potential envisioned in an EIR Special Report written by American economist Lyndon LaRouche, called Operation Juárez. LaRouche met with Mexican President José López Portillo in June 1982 when Mexico and most Ibero-American nations were being overwhelmed by unsustainable debt and being ordered to impose draconian austerity to guarantee that the bankers would get their pound of flesh. On August 2, 1982, LaRouche published his work, which proposed a “collective financial reorganization of Ibero-American debt.”

He proposed that debt be rescheduled or forgiven, and that the neoliberal, imperial economic system that created the debt crisis be replaced by a “new program of investments and operating policies.” To those economic hitmen who objected to this, saying they would lose interest income if the debt were reorganized or rescheduled, LaRouche offered the following reply: “Try to collect the old contracts, and you force us to default,” i.e., that the indebted nations could wield a “debt bomb.”

LaRouche’s prescience in his Operation Juárez is quite striking. He blasted the IMF determination of exchange rates at the time as “nothing more or less than pure and simple theft, on a massive scale, by foreign lending institutions and others.” Instead of submitting to IMF conditionalities, the continent needs a policy which will bring “internal institutions of credit, currency and banking into order,” as sovereign instruments designed to serve the interests of the nation, not global bankers. He also insisted on establishing medium and long-term trading partnerships, with “fair-pricing agreements,” an early warning against what would be the WTO regime of “free trade” policies designed to impose low wages and cheap raw material prices for the benefit of global corporations and banks. LaRouche sharply criticized the direction of the European Common Market, the predecessor of the European Union, which had adopted policies “based upon British-style central banking.”

EIRNS/Phillip Ulanowsky

Former Mexican President José López Portillo addressing the UN General Assembly on Oct. 1, 1982, New York City.

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

LaRouche’s advice helped shape the policy direction of the López Portillo government, which broke with the IMF during September-October of 1982, and attempted to rally other Ibero-American governments to join in. Despite the courage of López Portillo, the power of the City of London and Wall Street was too great to be then overcome and, with important brief exceptions, most of the next four decades have been shaped by imperial, free market, anti-sovereign, free trade policies, to the detriment of the nations and people of South and Central America.

The informed nationalism of López Portillo that was nurtured by the anti-imperial roots of the Mexican Revolution, virtually disappeared in Mexico after the end of his presidency, but it is now finding a rebirth in the approach, thus far, of AMLO. In the July 2018 Presidential election, AMLO won 53% of the vote in a three-party race, smashing the two establishment political parties. LaRouche recognized this potential in a piece he wrote in July 2006 titled “López Obrador is Right,” after AMLO was defrauded from winning the presidency. LaRouche’s 2006 advice should be taken seriously today, by both AMLO and President Trump, as they are being confronted by swindlers and economic hitmen out to preserve a dying system.

In addressing the crisis that he saw escalating at the time, which ripened into the Crash of 2008, LaRouche said that rather than accepting a system which denies credit for development,

You must create a mechanism of credit, which has to be a new mechanism of credit, by putting the old system, which is bankrupt, into reorganization.

Operation Juárez is the principle it’s based on. . . . The orientation has not changed since 1982. Back then, we were fighting to defend Mexico against what was coming out of the United States. And now Mexico has experienced what was coming out of the United States then, with a loss of its economy and its sovereignty. Don’t trust any private lenders who are not controlled by some kind of coalition of governments, to make sure the credit is long-term, cheap, and that it goes into infrastructure—public works primarily, and industries which are stimulated by public works. This is where we stand now.

López Obrador is absolutely right in saying that what they [the bankers] are doing, is that they are looting Mexico and its people by sucking them into the United States, like a great vacuum cleaner, through the sucking power of poverty, and looting. [What is needed now,] throughout the hemisphere, is long-term investments in solid, basic economic infrastructure, as a stimulant for every section of the economy.

LaRouche pointed to his standing proposal that Mexico should develop its oil industry as a transition to a nuclear energy-based, high-technology economy, as an example of the kind of policy that is required.

As President Trump has acted on a firm commitment to go against the system, he has found allies in Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, Narendra Modi, and others, who are unwilling to allow their nations to be destroyed by attempting to coexist with the collapsing British neoliberal global system. The movement against the establishment, beginning with the vote for Brexit, the election of leaders such as Trump and AMLO, and the spread of the spirit of the “Yellow Vests” in France, reflects a “mass strike” potential which cannot be contained short of unleashing chaos and war—which the neocons and neoliberals have as their last option.

For this mass strike process to reach its full potential, follow the advice of Mexico’s former President José López Portillo who, on December 1, 1998, in response to a keynote address given by Helga Zepp-LaRouche at the Mexican Society of Geography and Statistics in Mexico City, at which he was present, said:

I congratulate Doña Helga for these words, which impressed me, especially because first they [the bankers] trapped me in the Apocalypse, but then she showed me the staircase by which we can get to a promised land. Many thanks, Doña Helga.

Doña Helga—and here I wish to congratulate her husband, Lyndon LaRouche. . . . And it is now necessary for the world to listen to the wise words of Lyndon LaRouche. Now it is through the voice of his wife, as we have had the privilege to hear.

How important, that they enlighten us as to what is happening in the world, as to what will happen, and as to what can be corrected. How important, that someone dedicates their time, their generosity, and their enthusiasm to this endeavor.

Buy The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge. Vol. II: A Shared Future For Humanity

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

II. A World Without Empire

Creating a Renaissance

Out of the Depths of a Dark Age

by Megan Beets

NASA

Apollo 8 crew (left to right): William Anders, Frank Borman and Jim Lovell on the USS Yorktown, after their splashdown recovery on Dec. 27, 1968.

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

The following is an edited transcript of a presentation by Megan Beets at the Dec. 23, 2018 LaRouche PAC Manhattan meeting.

I want to take up the question of culture, and as we get into it, you’ll see what I mean. I’ll open with a quote from Lyndon LaRouche, from a discussion about music to set the scene and set the stage on which I’d like you to consider what we’re discussing today:

The future is: You’re all going to die. And what is the passion which corresponds, therefore, to mankind? Since everybody is going to die, what’s the meaning of human life? Is it a fact? Not exactly. It’s the creation of a more powerful capability of mankind, by purging mankind of its own corruption. Extracting mankind into the freedom from corruption. And all practical measures to craft and approve a quality of art are crap, because it’s not sincere. It doesn’t correspond to the principle of the matter.

And this is true. . . . You see it in drama, on the musical stage, in performance of all kinds. The beauty is creativity, per se. It’s also the measure of what creativity is. So, you take any composition, it’s a sacred business. If you really want to do it, you’re attempting a sacred work. And it’s a sense of man’s immortality. Even people, when they die, if they live well, they can contribute a memory of beauty, and that’s rarely done these days.

NASA/William Anders

Earthrise, the first color photo of Earth taken by a human in lunar orbit, aboard the Apollo 8, Dec. 24, 1968.

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

Now, with that on your mind, conjure up in your imagination an image of Jim Lovell, Frank Borman, and Bill Anders, sitting together in the command module of Apollo 8—which fifty years ago yesterday, launched into Earth orbit, and fifty years ago today, was somewhere in between the Earth and the Moon. These three individuals were the first human beings to ever leave Earth orbit, to ever travel to another celestial body. They were the first ones to ever see the globe of the Earth as a whole. They were the first ones to see with their human eyes, the surface of the Moon. These three men, on Christmas Eve 1968, read the first part of Genesis to the people of Earth in a live television broadcast from lunar orbit. In that moment, mankind as a whole changed; and it changed as embodied in these three individuals.

Compare in your mind—some of you might be able to remember—but compare that state of mind of people living in the United States of today. Compare what may have been occupying the thoughts of the people of the United States fifty years ago on that day, versus today. When you do that, don’t just think of your neighbor, or your annoying roommate, or the professor that you really hate; I want you to really examine yourself. What occupies your mind on a day-to-day basis? What thoughts are in your head in your moments of relaxation?

EIRNS/Stuart Lewis

Lyndon LaRouche, speaking on April 7, 2005 in Washington D.C.

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

Let’s now go to a clip of LaRouche. This is a webcast speech that he gave April 7, 2005. George W. Bush had just been elected and inaugurated for a second term, and the United States and the trans-Atlantic nations were headed for what would become the crash of 2007-2008, a crash much like—although much smaller than—what we are headed for today.

Lyndon LaRouche: Now we’re at the moment, in which the United States is gripped by the greatest financial-monetary crisis in modern history; at least since the beginning of the creation of our republic.

Now, although the United States has been in a process of decline from its former greatness as an economy, over more than three decades, the majority of our citizens, including leading figures in government, other leading circles, have been, for recent times, in a state of denial about the reality of the way this present crisis came into being. . . .

And this destruction has been going on for at least three decades. It was made conspicuous, beginning the process of the U.S. entry into the war in Vietnam. And it became acute with the entry of an extreme right-wing government—actually a government with fascist intentions—that of President Richard M. Nixon. And since that time, especially since the events of August 1971, the United States has been destroying itself, not inch by inch, but yard by yard.

There has been no recovery, from the ongoing, deep collapse of the U.S. economy, at any time, during the recent three decades. There has been no successful Presidency, no successful Congress, in power in the United States on the record in the past three decades. We have been destroying ourselves inch by inch: That destruction is caused by the consent of a majority of the people, to cultural and other changes in policy which destroyed, bit by bit, everything that had been built up in our history, including during the immediate periods following the war.

NATO Photos

Former U.S. President George W. Bush.

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

So therefore, the blame for the problem, does not lie with George W. Bush. George W. Bush is the thing that prevents the cure; but it is not the disease. The disease is the disease which was carried by previous governments of the United States, and by the behavior of a majority of the citizens who did vote, or could have voted, in the past three decades.

And therefore, the problem we have to cure today, is to correct the mistakes not only of this President, and his mistakes are grand in scale—“monstrous” I think is a better term than “grand,” isn’t it? But, to induce the people, at least a majority of the people, and a majority of leading influences among Democratic and Republican Party leaders in the United States, to recognize that they have been complicit in the crime of the destruction of the United States, its economy, and the destruction of the security of global civilization: Because we are truly, at this point, on the verge of a new Dark Age.

clipart.com

Painting, The Storming of the Bastille on the 14th of July 1789.

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

Will We Be a Little People?

In the late 18th, early 19th century, the Poet of Freedom, Friedrich Schiller, like all the supporters of the American Revolution in Europe, was watching the events of the French Revolution. He was watching at first with great optimism and hope that France would become the first of many republics on the continent of Europe. That hope turned to horror with the events of the Jacobin revolution. In 1795, Schiller wrote in his Letters on the Aesthetical Education of Man, of the events of the French Revolution, “The moral possibility is wanting, and a great moment finds a little people.” Now think about that for a moment. “The moral possibility” was wanting; the people weren’t moral enough to fulfill the chance that was presented before them on the stage of history. These people took action; they were out on the streets. They weren’t sitting at home; they overthrew their corrupt government to seize their inalienable rights. And yet, that great potential to actually seat the inalienable rights of man on the throne of government died on the guillotine.

As LaRouche went through in the clip that you just heard, the cause of the problem we face today is not the leadership of the country. It’s not the Congress—and I know everybody loves to blame the Congress and complain about the Congress and talk about term limits. That’s not the cause of this crisis. The cause lies in what we have tolerated for forty years. The cause is our own beliefs, our own kowtowing to popular opinion. How many of you have heard, or said yourself, “Oh, that’s just the way things are. You can’t change it, you can’t change things. That’s just the way things go. You have to go along to get along.” Most people have been going along to get along with a rotten popular opinion even though most people will say they disagree with it. They’ve been doing that for forty years, and that is what has engineered the situation in the United States and the world today.

What I want to take up in discussion here with you is: Will we remain little people? Must we remain little people? Must we fail to realize the great moment before us today? That is the real issue facing us today; and that’s what should be keeping you up at night, not “Does my neighbor know all of LaRouche’s Four Laws to Save the U.S.A. Now? Does my postman know what’s really behind the Russia-gate crisis?” Those things are important; however, without the ennoblement of our own character and that of our fellow citizens, unless we take on the mission to make people better people, none of these policy changes will work. Even if we get the restoration of FDR’s Glass-Steagall banking law, none of this will work or succeed for any length of time. A political victory can only come if it’s accompanied by a change in culture.

I’d like to ask all of you a question: When I say we have to change the culture, when Helga LaRouche says that we need a cultural renaissance—What is culture? What do we mean by culture? What is its purpose? I’d actually like to ask you; some of you should come up to the microphone and give your definition of culture.

Participant: Culture, in my estimation, is what you are in; the society that you’re in. What you do, what you learn, how you project yourself in the culture you live in; because you have different cultures around the world that run on the way they see things in their culture, in their environment. That’s culture to me. Cultures are all around the world, and they’re all of them different. It would be great if they all were one, but it’s not going to be like that because you’re in different hemispheres and different locations on the planet, and you govern yourself by the culture that you’re in. That’s my understanding.

Beets: Good. Anyone else?

Participant: Culture is what people do in their leisure hours, that would incline them to concentrate on a problem and incline them to have the concentration span to think about bigger things than the day’s news or what they’re enraged about, as opposed to the video game culture of “We have to get that guy” or the ten-year old child that has to stare at the pretty lights all day in his cell phone and doesn’t really think about what he’s looking at.

Beets: OK, good. Anyone else?

Participant: Culture is what we as individuals and then also as groups actually do, as we gather together; what we find important, and how we incorporate this into our daily life. And especially translate this to something meaningful for our children and those who we are in contact with. I think that is the meaning of culture to me.

Beets: OK. It’s difficult to give it some definition that’s not unsatisfactory, that doesn’t seem to be missing something. But I think all of you expressed something—a certain shared system of beliefs and a shared milieu of ideas that we operate in that can help us communicate with each other, that can help us pass on a certain way of acting and thinking to the next generations. H— expressed an optimistic idea, which is that culture can incline you to think of things higher than day-to-day life. I think these are all good things to think about. Keep considering this question as I go through the rest of this presentation, while also offering some ideas from Schiller.

Ennobling the Individual

Consider today’s popular culture, today’s popular entertainment—which is 100 percent degenerate, 100 percent depraved. Much of it is very depraved and getting worse, frankly. Think about this. Think of the movies that people go to; the movies you might go to. Think about the TV programming that people watch in their leisure hours. “Binge watching” has become a popular term today, which is really awful. Think about this. What is it? What’s it like? It’s full of violence; that’s probably the biggest characteristic of today’s popular culture. Sometimes terrible violence, which people choose to watch for hours as “entertainment.” It’s full of drugs; it’s full of sensational special effects which mesmerize the senses. Think about “popular music” today. I don’t care what genre you pick, the popular music today, or, frankly, the lives of most of the people who produce that “popular music.” A great majority of it glorifies drugs, murder, sex, death, rape—all catering to the most animalistic characteristics of our nature, which is really not worth the name “human being”; it glorifies these. Go into your children’s schools; this is the culture our children—even young children—are exposed to, listening to; and since they don’t really know better, are learning to live up to.

As I was going through all this, some of you might have thought to yourselves, “Well, OK, but I don’t listen to that kind of music, and I don’t go to those movies, and I don’t let my kids listen to that.” And you might say, “Well, I listen to classic rock,” or “I listen to easy-listening, country,” or something like that. But, the problem is, that none of this is art. None of this rises to the level of art. All of it is the same, in the sense that it appeals and nurtures the lowest level of man’s nature. Some of it does that because it’s violent and animalistic, and much of it does that because it’s empty. It’s banal or nonsensical.

Let me present two quick examples. Here is the first verse from a “song” that was one of the top songs of 2018:

I’ve been feelin’ kind of cooped up, cooped up.

I’m tryin’ to get some fresh air.

Hey, why you got the roof off, roof off?

You know it never rains here.

And you ain’t gotta flash when you’re takin’ your picture.

You ain’t gotta drown or waste your potential.

Paparazzi want to shoot ya.

Another that may appeal to the older or more nostalgic crowd, falls on the side of the banal:

Hey, Jude! Don’t make it bad.

Take a sad song and make it better.

Remember to let her into your heart.

Then you can start to make it better.

. . .

And anytime you feel the pain, hey Jude, refrain.

Don’t carry the world upon your shoulders.

For well you know that it’s a fool who plays it cool

By making his world a little colder.

Nah, nah, nah, na-na-nah, nah, na-na-nah, nah, nah nah.

I think this makes the point. With these two very mild samples of what we as a people are steeped in on a day-to-day basis, the question that I put before you is, “Where can an uplifting, where can an ennoblement come from?” If people are depraved, and if leadership is corrupt, where is the source of betterment? What source is there for uplifting of the individual?

This is something that Friedrich Schiller thought very deeply about, and as Helga LaRouche, the founder of the Schiller Institute, has said many times: of all of the poets and thinkers that she knows, Schiller probably had the most noble and the most elevated view of what mankind could be, and what mankind must become. Despite what was, even at his time, a depraved state of the population, Schiller saw the possibility and the necessity of elevating the individual toward the ideal. That we ought to try and uplift our fellow citizens toward the ideal, is a controversial notion

In his Aesthetical Letters, Schiller wrote:

It can be said that every individual carries a pure ideal man in himself . . . and it is the great task of his existence, during all his changes, to harmonize with this unchanging unity.

Think about that for a moment. Where does this ideal man exist? To the question, where can the ennoblement of the individual come from in a condition such as ours?— Schiller and Lyndon LaRouche both have concluded that it can only come from Classical art.

In The Aesthetical Letters, Schiller says this of art: “Art, like science, is free from everything that is practical and is established by human convention, and both rejoice in an absolute immunity from human lawlessness.”

This is surely an incredible idea. Listen to Schiller more fully:

Art, like science, is free from everything that is practical and is established by human convention, and both rejoice in an absolute immunity from human lawlessness. The political legislator can enclose their territory, but he cannot govern within it. He can outlaw the friend of truth, but the truth exists; he can humiliate the artist, but he cannot degrade art. . . .

For entire centuries philosophers and artists have been occupied in plunging truth and beauty into the depths of vulgar humanity; the philosophers and artists are submerged there, but truth and beauty struggle triumphantly to the surface with their own indestructible vitality.

Educating One’s Emotions

Now contrast that with what people might think today, when you say “art.” Contrast that with what might pop into your own head, when somebody asks you, “What is Art?” For most people today, “art” means self-expression: “I have to express my feelings. I have to express the condition that I’m in. I have to express my mood. I’m surrounded by ugliness, I have to express that.”

The problem is that what most people have inside of themselves and are feeling, probably should not be shared as public expression. It probably should not be spread to others. But the idea that anything which is self-expression qualifies as art goes back to the beginning of the 20th century; it goes even further back to the Romantics that Schiller and his successors battled in the 19th century. It finds its root all the way back in Aristotle’s Poetics. Schiller had a much different idea of art, and the role of the artist. Schiller said that art can, and must, elevate the individual above the depraved, above his or her circumstances; and can elevate the individual to the ideal. If it doesn’t do that, it doesn’t qualify as art.

Painting by Gerhard von Kügelgen

Friedrich Schiller (1759-1805)

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

Schiller said that the role of the artist is to free his or her audience from the limitations of the lower faculties; to ennoble the members of the audience toward the ideal and toward the universal. In order to do this, the artist carries a certain responsibility:

In order to be certain that he is indeed addressing the pure species within the individual, he himself must have already extinguished the individual within himself, and must have elevated himself to species-being.

In order to be sure that the artist is playing that role, he or she must have extinguished the individual within himself and risen to the universal. Let us continue further with Schiller.

Only when he no longer experiences emotion as belonging to this or that specific person (in whom the notion of species would always remain limited), . . . but rather as belonging to man as a universal, can he then be certain that the emotions of the entire human species will follow his own; indeed, he is just as entitled to strive for this effect, as he is to demand pure humanity from each human individual.

For Schiller, before the artist dare attempt to move his audience, he or she must become—at least in that moment—an ideal person, a universal person. If you’re not in that condition, you have no business trying to move or impart an artistic conception to your audience, because it won’t uplift them; it won’t play the role that art must play.

This brings us to the notion of the Aesthetical Education. Schiller, as did others before him, believed that it’s possible to educate one’s intellect and learn new things, and take oneself from a state of ignorance to a state of knowledge to be more in line with reason. Schiller believed that one can also educate one’s emotions. This is a controversial idea nowadays, because people defend their emotions as truth; and most people assume that there is an inherent validity in their emotions—their feelings. Schiller insisted that everyone has the capability of training his or her emotions, to make one’s own emotions more coherent with reason, and to move from being dominated by infantile emotions to living, instead, with more and more noble emotions.

In many of his writings, Schiller discusses the idea of the “beautiful soul” as a condition to which all human beings can aspire and toward which they can develop. The beautiful soul is the person for whom the emotional impulses, the desires, the instincts, are not in contradiction with what’s right and what is good and reasonable. For this person, for the beautiful soul, that person is free. This idea of Schiller is in explicit opposition to the Aristotelian ideas which were promoted especially by Immanuel Kant, whom LaRouche many times has called “I Kan’t.” Kant said that in order to have a civilized society, people must suppress their bestial impulses that we all have. You have to suppress your true terrible bad desires, and you do that with a rigid structure of morals and laws and rules.

Painting by Carle Vernet

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)

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

For Schiller, this was terrible, because the freedom of mankind, the dignity of mankind, was suppressed—was limited. If you were always condemned to suppress what you really want, where is your freedom? If that’s your view of man, what are you really saying? You’re really saying that mankind is nothing but a bad animal on the inside, who can never truly be elevated to the divine. So, we control him or her with laws, with rules.

Schiller completely rejects such an idea. He puts forward that the way we educate the emotions and train them is through great art, through great drama, through music, poetry, painting. It’s through that, in that forum, that mankind can experience the universal. Mankind can experience the state of mind of “creative play,” which is what brings us close to the divine. In that state of mind, that state of being lifted out of the day-to-day to consider the universal, even in art—especially when it’s in the form of experiencing art—these are real experiences, with lasting effects. When someone walks out of the theater after a great drama, they don’t go back to being exactly who they were before. Schiller insists, that over time, this kind of training of the emotional character of the human being through beauty and through great art, can tame the barbaric impulses and can overcome them.

Mankind Is a Unique Species

Let’s turn again to Lyndon LaRouche, and his 2015 discussion about music again and some of his thoughts on the role of art, and on the role of the artist.

Interestingly, although it’s quite lawful, LaRouche developed many of the same ideas as Schiller, although independently; it was through his own pathways of discovery in the science of physical economy, and also through his own inner conviction of his own feeling of creativity and his own love of the beautiful. LaRouche says about the nature of mankind:

Mankind is a unique species! There is nothing like it, there’s no animal that’s like it. There’s no animal which produces mankind. Mankind is a unique phenomenon. And the characteristic of mankind is creativity! And therefore, what you want to do in life, you want to accompany your life with things like great music. Because they perpetuate your existence by perpetuating what you’re capable of doing for mankind.

That’s why you want to do a good performance, because immortality is looking at you—and raising questions. Here we’re talking now about music, but the point is that’s what the reason of music is. The meaning is not based on music, it’s based on the soul of mankind.

Think about that: What is the meaning of music? Most people today say, “Well, it’s the message, it’s the message.” Right? But what LaRouche said is that the meaning of music is “perpetuating immortality,” uplifting the soul, perpetuating the soul of mankind—that’s the purpose of music. Think back to what Schiller said on the role of art and the necessity of great art in the culture.

What this means implicitly about music—and LaRouche discusses this again and again in his writings—is that music is not sound. There is a beautiful line in John Keats’ poem, Ode on a Grecian Urn:

Heard melodies are sweet, but those unheard

Are sweeter. . . .

Left: Drawing by Joseph Severn; right: Drawing by John Keats

Left: John Keats (1795-1821). Right: a Grecian urn, as sketched by Keats.

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

That can be read carelessly as just a nice-sounding idea, but consider it carefully. LaRouche in that same discussion said:

The music lies not in the music. It lies in the motive for the music. Otherwise, what does the music mean? It’s just a form of noise-making. You don’t want to make noise, you want to capture the mind of the people. Not their ears. And the result should come through mind, not the ears. You interpret the thing not as heard—the ‘heard sounds,’. . .

What you should hear is the brilliant music of the unheard performance. But you don’t have to hear it because you’re already captured by it. You are a property of it.

Ninety-nine point ninety-nine percent of most music composed today is not worth performing. LaRouche continued, speaking about the artist:

If you want to compose something actually worth performing, and if you want to perform it in a way that does not butcher it, or butchers its intention, you have to give way to the meaning of your life. And the difference is, the average person thinks that they’re born, and they die, and they organize their lives on the basis of this idea. ‘I’m going to live until I die.’ And that’s the end for them. That’s their goal. Their goal is, perversely, implicitly to die. Because they assume that everything that they do that’s valuable is going to end with their death.

That’s not the case with Wilhelm Furtwängler. This is not the case with the greatest composers and the greatest singers. It’s not! The purpose is to achieve a quality of immortality, which is not mechanical, which is not a routine, but which creates an image by the performer, by the person who’s hearing it, who is experiencing it, to have a premonition of immortality.

I realize I’ve thrown a lot at you, but I want you to think back on the challenge that’s really before us today. Our task is to present a clear vision of the future, of the necessary future for mankind. How will you qualify yourself to do that? How will you qualify yourself to elevate the identity and the souls of our fellow-citizens toward the creative? We can create a Renaissance. It is possible to make 350 million Americans out there better people. This isn’t some far-flung fantasy, this is not something that is out of the realm of all possibility. This is a necessary mission.

It is in deciding to do that, that you create a Renaissance out of a dark age. All of the previous renaissances in human history were intentional. They came about intentionally, because a certain grouping of leading people decided to reject the depravity of their current culture and decided to produce something better.

That’s our mission today. And it might mean giving up your bad music; it might mean giving up the depraved entertainment that fills your leisure time. But you’re not denying anybody anything. What it means is replacing that with participation in truly beautiful art, deciding to ennoble your soul, deciding to fill your leisure time with that which is beautiful.

That’s our political mission today. It’s not separate; it’s actually primary. And I’d like to end by echoing the appeal of Helga Zepp-LaRouche in her December 20 webcast. She said, look, most people have a little extra time over the holiday break, and I challenge you and give you the assignment to use that extra time to study—study great art, study great poetry, great writings, read the writings of Lyndon LaRouche, which are great art. Read the poetry of Keats, of Shelley, of Shakespeare. Read the works of Schiller.

Do these things. Do the work, join the chorus. Decide, if you haven’t already, to participate in a social process of the creation of beautiful works of art. So, do this work, which is a process which never really stops, this kind of development, and take on the responsibility of qualifying yourself to lead in this political crisis. Let us make sure that we, in the United States, are no longer a “little people.”

IS SCIENCE SUBVERSIVE?

The Potential of U.S.-China Collaboration in Science

by Brian Lantz

NASA/Bill Ingalls

NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine (left), and Roscosmos Director General Dmitry Rogozin, celebrate the launch of Expedition 57 to the International Space Station on Dec. 11, 2018.

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

Jan. 12—A global fight of historic proportions is underway, one which may well determine the fate of human civilization. This report identifies the strategic dividing lines of that fight. On the one side are the enormous potential benefits for mankind of scientific and cultural renaissance—if we cooperate in creating a “shared future” among sovereign nations. On the other side is a massive effort to prevent the United States and China (and Russia) from cooperating in science and in securing mankind’s future through space exploration. As Helga Zepp-LaRouche, President of the Schiller Institute, has recently emphasized, it is the American people who will determine the outcome.

In October, while at Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan for the launch of Soyuz MS-10 to the International Space Station, NASA Director Jim Bridenstine invited his Russian counterpart, Dimitri Rogozin, the director of Russia’s Roscomos space agency, to visit NASA’s Manned Mission headquarters in Houston, Texas. Recall that the U.S. cannot currently even reach the International Space Station, and United Space Alliance, owned by Boeing and Lockheed Martin, relies on rocket engines purchased from Russia.

After an outpouring of opposition, led by members of Congress complicit in the attempted coup against President Trump and by Politico magazine, NASA first announced that the visit was postponed, and then that it was canceled. In a follow-up press conference, Rogozin characterized the forced cancellation of the invitation by stating, “There is a civil war going on within the United States.”

Rogozin’s comment on “civil war” is in a certain sense true. But to be more truthful, it is necessary to look at the omnipresent intrigues of the British Empire. Britain’s role—in attempting to destroy U.S. cooperation with Russia and China in science and space exploration, as well as in instigating the current attempt to carry out a coup against the President of the United States—is the key to understanding the current strategic crisis. As Charles de Gaulle would state, whenever strategic tensions rise, one must “look to Perfidious Albion.”

One can clearly see the conversion of this evil intention into action in the renewed British “regime-change” and war drive against Russia that followed the 2014 Ukraine coup, and then the vast interference in the 2016 U.S. Presidential elections, and the still ongoing Russiagate coup attempt against President Trump in the United States. The British handiwork has included the promotion of the obvious intelligence fraud, the dirty dossier about Trump attributed to MI6 agent Christopher Steele, that has dominated political discussion in the United States for more than two years, creating popular insanity about Russia and China and virtually paralyzing our government’s ability to act in certain domains. This is the source of the current assault on U.S.-China-Russia collaboration in science.

The fight is now out in the open. The British House of Lords Report, “UK Foreign Policy in a Shifting World Order,” released December 18, 2018, bares the British imperial intentions to (1) prevent a second Trump presidential term at any costs; and (2) crush the rise of China. Together with the recently released, purloined documents of the British military’s “Integrity Initiative,” exposing a vital part of the British-spawned hybrid warfare apparatus targeting the U.S., China, Russia, and India, we now have the full story—and in their own words.

For a full assessment of the House of Lords Report and the Integrity Initiative, see Barbara Boyd’s article in this issue. See also the article, “Covert British Military-Smear Machine Moving into U.S.,” by Max Blumenthal and Mark Ames in Consortium News.

The Progress of Mankind at Stake

What is our intention, as Americans? Advances in science and technology are now being pursued around the globe. China’s Chang’e-4 has landed the Yutu II rover on the far side of the Moon. China’s Belt and Road Initiative, now encompassing some 100 countries, has put new impetus into collaboration in scientific work. Physical coordination across the vast Belt and Road would not be possible without space technology. This space science, much more than in the area of “morphing” of manufacturing global supply chains in manufacturing, will be fundamental to breakthroughs in Mankind’s development. Ridding ourselves of the legacy of geopolitics and working with leading thinkers in many countries will catalyze further breakthroughs. We will also be able to share costs and pursue complementary lines of expertise, while avoiding the duplication of effort.

The fact that over 40% of U.S. doctoral degrees are awarded to foreign-born students, and that one-in-three U.S. scientists and engineers are foreign born, should be approached as a plus! This is part of vast, growing international collaboration in science and technology.

Left: EIRNS/Stuart Lewis; right: Ferdinand Schmutzer

Left: Edward Teller; right:Albert Einstein

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

Let us step back: President John F. Kennedy and Bobby Kennedy must be smiling. Dr. Edward Teller is surely smiling; he vigorously demanded an end to most “top secret” classifications and the targeting of scientists. Even the great Dr. Albert Einstein was targetted by the FBI. Teller, who was part of the Manhattan Project and then Director of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories, said that “national security” strictures work to undermine scientific work: “Where I’m worried is where we keep our own accomplishments secret, as has been the case in some fields connected with atomic energy and with the military. I’m particularly concerned when we try to keep secret what our competitors are doing.”

In the 1980s, it was Lyndon LaRouche, President Ronald Reagan and Dr. Edward Teller who moved to disband the British Empire’s “Iron Curtain” doctrine of “MAD”—Mutually Assured Destruction. They were intent on unleashing science from its Cold War secrecy constraints, with their Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). The SDI explicitly proposed a sharing of science and technology in the most advanced areas of research, to jointly develop defensive systems that would make nuclear weapons “impotent and obsolete.” It should be recognized that with the ongoing success of the Chang’e-4 mission we now have an opportunity to pick up the “win-win” breakthrough conception of “mutually assured survival” once again. To do so, we must make clear who it is that is out to stop the current enormous potential for international cooperation in science, and a New Paradigm for Mankind.

Strategic Threat or Strategic Competitor?

The battle is on, and we Americans must roll up our sleeves! As the House of Lords report indicates, the British Empire, using its neocon and neo-liberal subjects inside the Trump administration and government bureaucracy, is attempting to turn Trump’s “America First” campaign pledge on its head, and promote confrontation with Russia and China.

A cluster of foundations, “quangos,” and think-tanks are serving as vehicles for promoting British geopolitical doctrine inside the United States. Rabidly anti-China and anti-Russia institutions including the Jamestown Foundation, Atlantic Council, Hudson Institute, American Enterprise Institute, and the Congressional-Executive Commission on China chaired by Senator Marco Rubio and Rep. Christopher Smith, have been working overtime, coordinated with the mass media outlets, to buffalo the President and Congress. They have thus been working to reinforce the leverage of neocons inside the Administration.

White House/Joyce N. Boghosian

President Donald Trump delivers remarks regarding the Administration’s National Security Strategy at the Ronald Reagan Building, Washington, D.C., 2019.

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

In December 2017, the Trump Administration released its first annual “National Security Strategy.” In order to soften the impact of this neocon boilerplate document, President Donald Trump personally held a press conference releasing the report. He referred to Russia and China as “rival powers.” This designation of Beijing as a “rival” or “competitor”—as opposed to an “enemy”—came one month after Trump’s fruitful visit to Beijing.

Undeterred, the new cold warriors subsequently released the Pentagon’s 2018 “National Defense Strategy,” (NDS), which characterized China (and Russia) as “revisionist powers.” The imputed author of the NDS, then Defense Secretary James Mattis, said, “We will continue to prosecute the campaign against terrorists that we are engaged in today, but great power competition, not terrorism, is now the primary focus of U.S. national security.” Russia and China were charged—without evidence but against the backdrop on the Integrity Initiative’s howling mass media—with seeking to “shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model—gaining veto authority over other nations’ economic, diplomatic, and security decisions.”

It is very clear that President Trump and his allies do not agree with this assessment. Senator Rand Paul has spoken out in support of President Trump’s negotiations with North Korea, and with Russia and China. It is also clear to the British Empire that President Trump is an independent thinker, who thinks in terms of nation-to-nation cooperation. It is also objectively clear that China is not mounting a military force to threaten or invade the United States. China spends only 25% of what the U.S. does on its military. There is no evidence that it is trying to intervene in America’s domestic politics or engage in any sort of deliberate campaign to destroy the American economy. James Mattis is now gone from the President’s Cabinet and President Trump is overseeing the ordered withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria.

The mouthing of lies echoing the anti-communist rhetoric from the 1950s, expresses the real intent behind British Empire grand strategy. As the House of Lords report states explicitly, the Empire fears four nations and their potential cooperation: The United States, Russia, China, and India. These are, not accidentally, the “Four Powers” specified by economist and statesman Lyndon LaRouche as key to the implementation of a “New Bretton Woods agreement” that would end the drug money-laundering, British monetarist-based empire forever.

Can U.S. & Chinese Scientists Collaborate?

It was not entirely a surprise that the U.S. and China exchanged data during the run-up to the Chang’e-4 Rover landing on the Moon. As Xu Yansong, the director of International Cooperation at China National Space Administration reported, “We have support from the European Space Agency, and we are also cooperating with NASA on using the lunar reconnaissance orbiter from NASA to observe changes in the landing process. So, we’ve been closely cooperating with the international community, and certainly looking forward to very fruitful scientific returns.” This was in addition to the roles played by Germany, Sweden, and Saudi Arabia.

Chinese Academy of Sciences

Zhang Kejian, Adminisrator of the China National Space Administration.

Artist’s conception of the Chang’e-4 lander on the lunar surface. Chang’e-4 landed successfully on the far side of the Moon on Jan. 3, 2019.

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

At the October 2018 International Astronautical Congress in Bremen, Germany, Zhang Kejian, administrator of the China National Space Administration (CNSA), stressed China’s cooperative approach to space collaboration. Zhang said, “CNSA is willing to join our hands with other international partners for the benefit of human civilization and progress of human society.” He noted that he and NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine had met earlier on the sidelines of the Congress. Bridenstine, for his part, at a press conference, agreed that a greater sharing of data was possible. “They’re doing some amazing scientific experiments,” he said, citing as an example, then, China’s now successful Chang’e-4 mission that would attempt the first landing on the far side of the Moon. “We can share data and collaborate that way so that each country can learn more about science,” Bridenstine added.

The British and their neocon and neo-liberal subjects are now gnashing their teeth. U.S.-China cooperation was not supposed to happen. Collaboration between China and the United States in space was specifically targeted and intended to cease with the 2011 passage of the “Wolf Amendment,” sponsored by Senator Frank Wolf (R-VA). As a result of that Amendment, Federal law currently prohibits NASA from bilateral cooperation with China, unless the agency first receives congressional approval. (There must be a vote on the Amendment every year, to determine whether to extend it or not.) The mass media “echo chamber” in Washington keeps Congress in line, if not brainwashed. Current export control restrictions are meant to hamstring U.S. companies from selling identified types of hardware to Chinese companies or launching satellites on Chinese rockets.

Witch-Hunts and Harassment

As China becomes the most scientifically advanced space-faring nation on the planet, more FBI witch-hunts have targeted Chinese-American scientists. In August 2018, at an unprecedented Texas meeting with over 100 leaders of academic and medical institutions, FBI officials held a briefing on “security threats from adversaries, the first step in a new initiative the Bureau plans to replicate around the country.”

This briefing followed the December 2017 Houston Mayoral trade mission to China, the city’s largest ever trade mission. The FBI’s McCarthy-style August 2018 meeting came in the context of increased prosecutions and attempted prosecutions of citizens and legal residents of Chinese descent. In December 2018, Houston Chinese leaders traveled to Washington to meet with the FBI and directly question the FBI targeting of Chinese-Americans and Chinese in America. Here is some of what they reported:

According to a study conducted by Andrew Kim, a local attorney and visiting scholar at South Texas College of Law who attended the FBI’s Dec. 7 meeting, the rate of people of Chinese heritage charged under the Economic Espionage Act has tripled to 52% between 2009 and 2015—making up most EEA defendants. The rate of defendants of other Asian heritages was 10%.

In addition to the disproportionate number of charges, convicted defendants of Asian heritage had sentences twice as severe as those with Western names—22 months on average. And 1 in 5 of those of Asian heritage accused of economic espionage have yet to be proven guilty—again, double the rate of those with Western names falsely accused.

Steven Pei, a professor at the University of Houston’s Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, brought up concerns about “a large number of Chinese American researchers in Houston investigated for espionage and put on administrative leave with or without pay over the last year”—mainly individuals working for the University of Texas-Houston.

Even the medical field is being targeted by the FBI and related political police operations. An M.D. Anderson Cancer Center scientist, Keping Xie, a 56-year-old researcher in the field of pancreatic cancer, was accused of possession of child pornography and the University of Texas-Houston police launched an investigation into the contents of more than a dozen of his research and personal computers. (The research hospital is part of the University of Texas System.) Additionally, there were “anonymously sourced reports” that the FBI was investigating the cancer researcher for possible espionage on behalf of China. Xie denied the allegation and his attorney called it “ludicrous.” Only recently, and after his resignation from the cancer hospital, Xie was cleared of all charges, and his case was dismissed, after a Harris County grand jury declined to indict him.

There is also a longer history of such FBI harassment around the nation. We note here just three of the more egregious cases:

• Wen Ho Lee, a Taiwan-born nuclear scientist at Los Alamos National Laboratory, was indicted in 1999 for stealing nuclear weapons designs and sharing them with China. He spent nine months in solitary confinement before all the charges were dropped.

• Xiaoxing Xi, chair of the Physics Department of Temple University, working in superconductors, was arrested with his family at gunpoint by the FBI in 2015, before prosecutors withdrew all charges, leaving Xi and his family (and potential scientific collaborators) living and working in an environment of fear.

• In April 2017, Szuhsiung “Allen” Ho, a Westinghouse nuclear engineer and consultant (and Taiwanese-American citizen) was thrown in jail without bail and charged with espionage. In early 2018, after months behind bars and facing charges that could bring life imprisonment, he pled to one count and received a two-year sentence.

The FBI—British Goons

There is no question that this witch-hunt against scientists and researchers of Chinese descent has come top-down. While the FBI’s targeting of scientists and scientific work dates back to at least J. Edgar Hoover’s campaign of harassment, spying, and attempted deportation of Albert Einstein, the FBI’s current campaign has escalated alongside its desperate, disgraced role in the treasonous attempted coup against President Donald Trump. The LaRouche movement and this publication have played a key catalytic role in exposing that operation as well. As we are outlining, this is part of the desperate strategy of the British Empire’s minions to “divide and rule” and end the existence of the United States as a Constitutional Republic.

FBI.gov

FBI Director Christopher Wray addresses the International Conference on Cyber Security at Fordham University in New York City on Jan. 9, 2018.

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

Consider the incendiary filth mouthed by the thoroughly corrupt Christopher Wray, current Director of the FBI. Wray is the successor to discredited FBI director “ ‘Leakin’ James Comey.” In a February 13, 2018 U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee hearing that covered threats of North Korea, alleged Russian spying, and WMDs, neocon Senator Marco Rubio queried Christopher Wray on the specter of China infiltration of U.S. higher education institutions. Asked by Rubio to comment on “the counterintelligence risk posed to U.S. national security from Chinese students, particularly those in advanced programs in the sciences and mathematics,” Wray stunned academics and scientists with his response:

I think in this setting I would just say that the use of nontraditional collectors, especially in the academic setting, whether it’s professors, scientists, students, we see in almost every field office that the FBI has around the country. It’s not just in major cities. It’s in small ones as well. It’s across basically every discipline.

And I think the level of naiveté on the part of the academic sector about this creates its own issues. They’re exploiting the very open research and development environment that we have, which we all revere, but they’re taking advantage of it. So, one of the things we’re trying to do is view the China threat as not just a whole-of-government threat but a whole-of-society threat on their end, and I think it’s going to take a whole-of-society response by us. So, it’s not just the intelligence community, but it’s raising awareness within our academic sector, within our private sector, as part of the defense.

Straight McCarthyism. Republican Party and other patriots should reflect and consider that this is coming from the same agency that is attempting to topple the elected President of the United States. Is their chain being jerked? Rubio then raised his particular hobby-horse, the Confucius Institutes, now present on about 100 campuses in the United States, which he hysterically claimed are “complicit in these efforts to covertly influence public opinion and to teach half-truths designed to present Chinese history, government or official policy in the most favorable light.” In his testimony, Wray stated, “We do share concerns about the Confucius Institutes. We’ve been watching that development for a while. It’s just one of many tools that they take advantage of . . .”

Not surprisingly, to this day, no evidence has ever been publicly presented of espionage on the part of the Confucius Institutes or their teachers—just as there has been no evidence of Trump “collusion” with Russia. Only allegations promoted by the corrupt, and now-disgraced leadership of the FBI. It also has been pointed out that U.S. agencies are happy to attempt to recruit Chinese students, while in the United States, for espionage against China.

U.S. Army

Ralph Van Deman, mentor of J. Edgar Hoover, shown here in 1921.

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

FBI Targeted Science from the Start

The creation of J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI was itself an imperial project, and both the ideology and methods employed by the FBI are products of Ralph Van Deman, the misnomered “father of American military intelligence,” who was guided by his very experienced friend, Sir Claude Edward Marjoribanks Dansey, later assistant chief of the British Secret Intelligence Service (MI6). At one point, Dansey even set up shop inside Van Deman’s office.

Van Deman was, in turn, Hoover’s mentor, and up to his death in 1952, Van Deman remained one of his closest confidants. Van Deman modeled his methods directly on those of British intelligence, using what can loosely be termed brutal “divide and rule” methods to “neutralize” revolutionary leaders and movements. Crudely utilizing those methods in the Philippines, Van Deman was then encouraged to go to British-colonial India to gain further, first-hand experience.

In the United States, in coordination with Hoover and elements of Army Intelligence, Van Deman continued to run countless private citizen and vigilante operations to target “subversives,” assisted by the power of the FBI and similar agencies on the state level. Albert Einstein and his wife Elsa were harassed by Van Deman/Hoover operations, such as the “Women’s Patriot Corporation,” alongside elements of the U.S. State Department. Albert Einstein, one of the greatest scientists of the last 100 years, was labeled “a communist and menace.” A specialty of Claude Dansey was the penetration of private companies and corporations, particularly noteworthy given the FBI’s current deployment into, and intimidation of, U.S. companies and institutions in search of Chinese espionage, real or fake.

‘Win-Win’ U.S.-China Relationship

What is it that the British and their puppets in the United States are trying to prevent? Consider the full implications and benefits of healthy collaboration between America and China in the fields of science and space exploration, benefits not only for both nations, but benefits which will resonate worldwide:

Fusion and Helium-3. On Thursday, January 3, Beijing time, China became the first nation to ever attempt—and accomplish—a soft landing on the far side of the Moon. This achievement has far greater implications than what has been reported in almost all media coverage. As Professor Ouyang Ziyuan, the chief scientist of China’s Lunar Exploration Program, the Chang’e Project, reported, “The Moon is so rich in helium-3, that it could solve humanity’s energy demand for around 10,000 years at least. Helium-3 is an ideal fuel for nuclear fusion power, the next generation of nuclear power.”

Exploration of the Low End of Electromagnetic Spectrum. U.S.-China cooperation on the far-side of the Moon is now on the table, with the Chang’e-4 rover on the far side of the Moon. Exploration of the low end of the electromagnetic spectrum for the first time will point to new physical laws and the overthrow of long-held but false or inadequate axioms.

Investigation of Gravity Waves. Gravitational waves could usher in a new era in astronomy. Virtually all astronomy is now done by detecting forms of electromagnetic radiation, but electromagnetic waves are easily reflected and absorbed. Gravitational waves could change astronomy because the universe is nearly transparent to them. Humans will be able to observe astrophysical objects that would otherwise be invisible, as well as the inner mechanisms of phenomena that do not produce light.

Hypersonic Technology and a Revived SDI/SDE. We are talking about both air-launched and space-launched systems. In the 1980s, Lyndon LaRouche, President Reagan and Dr. Edward Teller took the lead in advancing the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). The current race for hypersonic weapons can be turned into cooperation to develop a new SDI and Strategic Defense of Earth (SDE) from asteroids and comets. Russia and China are far ahead of the United States, so, as Edward Teller would ask, “What are we protecting?!”

Plasma Science. Profound new insights into the behavior of solar and stellar phenomena, exciting advances in fusion energy research and development, as well as the technological applications of plasmas will play an increasing role in 21st century science and research. Plasma-related science and resulting technologies are an important part of hypersonic technologies. Scramjets can potentially take man and supplies up to low-Earth orbit (LEO) and require mastery of the plasma domain. Plasma technologies may allow us to shield spacecraft in outer space from radiation and help produce oxygen on Mars.

Wikipedia Commons/Alex Needham

A maglev train leaves Shanghai’s Pudong International Airport in 2006.

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

Maglev and High-Speed Rail. Maglev—short for magnetic levitation—trains can trace their roots to technology pioneered at Brookhaven National Laboratory. Yet, China is now operating maglev trains and planning more, operating low to medium speed maglev trains in urban areas and building high-speed maglev factories. One of its major rail companies has now contracted to build a maglev factory in the Philippines, for internal use and export.

Biosciences and Optical Biophysics. What is life? Here Mankind again is confronting the Universe with fundamental questions of epistemology. Einstein and Planck sought to conceptualize the higher principle underlying the apparently discontinuous character of quantum phenomena. Enormous international collaboration has been going on for decades (In addition to cooperation on organizing and managing modern hospital and research facilities, and the development of medical devices.) Enormous work remains to be done regarding T-cells, the growing of organs, and repairing of tissues; the role of microorganisms, and the promise of expanded cancer research. Over 40 million nuclear medicine procedures are performed each year, and demand for radioisotopes is increasing at up to 5% annually.

Epistemology. Finally but most fundamentally, we cannot rest on filling in the lattice work of existing knowledge—filling in holes in our knowledge with terms such as “dark matter.” The negentropic nature of the universe, as expressed through Mankind’s own innate creativity, must be finally considered. This is the great challenge, to create fundamental breakthroughs in principle.

A serious effort in any one of these areas of scientific research will reap great benefits for mankind. A friendly scientific working relationship with China (and Russia) will open the way for breakthroughs in all these projects. This holds the potential for stupendous progress and an unparalleled future for every nation in the world.

In that context, the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) is a critical institution for U.S.-China cooperation. There were 124 different institutions directly under the CAS as of the end of 2012, including 104 research institutes, and five universities and supporting organizations. The Chinese Academy of Sciences is home to over 80% of China’s large-scale science facilities, and any sane U.S. science policy would encourage cooperation and joint projects between the CAS and U.S. laboratories.

Huawei & Efforts to Kill the Trade Talks

Consider the recent sensationalized media stories about Huawei, China’s leading electronics manufacturing and research company, which is the world leader in the development of 5G technology. Given what has already been reported in this article, it should be glaringly clear that the mass media mantra that “Huawei equals China spying” is a canard.

On December 1, Meng Wanzhou, Huawei’s chief financial officer (CFO) and deputy chair was arrested in Vancouver, BC, in the British Commonwealth colony of Canada. Canada’s ministry of justice stated that the reason for the arrest was that Ms. Meng was “sought for extradition by the United States.” It should come as no surprise to the educated reader, that this arrest occurred while President Trump was in sensitive meetings with President Xi of China, on the sidelines of the G-20 summit in Buenos Aires, Argentina! Trump had been kept out of the loop, as neocon NSC director John Bolton himself all but admitted on NPR radio.

CC/Brücke-Osteuropa

Huawei Technologies Co. headquarters in Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.

Office of the President of Russia

Meng Wanzhou, Chief Financial Officer and Deputy Chairwoman of the Board of Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd., China’s largest private company. Meng was arrested in Canada at the request of the U.S.

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

While it is unclear whether the U.S. will now actually seek extradition of Meng, the intended consequences are obvious: to rub as much salt in the wound of U.S.-China relations as possible. To appreciate the outrageous nature of this arrest, think about how a comparable Chinese action, perhaps the arrest of the CFO of Apple Computer in Vietnam, for extradition to China on charges of espionage, would be received. Significantly, the Chinese government was firm and measured in response, and chose to focus its blame on Canada and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. As China’s Global Times editorialized, “The recent arrest in Canada of Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou has brought uncertainty to the negotiations during the current China-U.S. trade truce.”

In the background, the duplicitous involvement of the British Crown and its servile subjects can be taken as a certainty. British Commonwealth countries Australia and New Zealand have already banned Huawei equipment, and UK mobile operator EE, which had conducted 5G network trials in partnership with Huawei, has been forced by its owner, the BT Group, to scrub Huawei equipment from EE networks, citing “national security” concerns, according to the phys.org in its article titled, “Britain’s BT scrubs China’s Huawei from 4G network.”

Consider also the following news item from London:

Every day behind its ultra-secure doors and a thicket of security measures, a delicate geopolitical game is played out balancing the thrusting know-how of Huawei, a Chinese technology behemoth, with Britain’s national security. Otherwise known as the Huawei Cyber Security Evaluation Centre (HCSEC), The Cell is uniquely staffed by a combination of British intelligence officers and security-cleared employees of the world’s largest telecoms equipment company. Their job is to pick apart Huawei’s networking gear and the millions of lines of software code that make it function in search of backdoors for espionage.

The Door Is Open: We Must Walk Through

In the face of these British geopolitical operations, President Trump is pressing forward to improve U.S.-China relations. The completion of the January 7-9 trade negotiations in Beijing, perhaps the most comprehensive yet held between the United States and China, is cause for optimism. Saner voices are pushing back, and optimism has been expressed by both sides of the negotiation table. The U.S. Trade Representative’s (USTR’s) office released a statement on Jan. 9 reporting that, “the talks also focused on China’s pledge to purchase a substantial amount of agricultural, energy, manufactured goods, and other products and services from the United States.”

The USTR statement referred to the Trump-Xi Dec. 1 meeting in Buenos Aires, where a decision was made to engage in 90 days of negotiations with a view to achieving needed structural changes in China with respect to forced technology transfer, intellectual property protection, non-tariff barriers, cyber intrusions and cyber theft of trade secrets for commercial purposes, services, and agriculture.

A positive note from Beijing is that the Commerce Ministry spokesperson, Gao Feng, told a press briefing, “The Chinese side also believes that the implementation mechanism is important.” On Jan. 9, Reuters reported that China’s Commerce Ministry called the trade talks “extensive, deep and thorough,” and a “foundation for the resolution of each other’s concerns.”

What is evident is that while some difficult issues have not been resolved, both sides have again shown a readiness to address those issues. What is truer, is that success in the battle for mankind’s future, rests with the American people.

UN/Teddy Chen

President John F. Kennedy addressing the UN General Assembly on Sept. 20, 1963 in New York City.

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

John F. Kennedy’s Speech to the UN

Let us revisit what a great U.S. President said on an earlier occasion. Let us place the current assault on the Trump Presidency and the bullying efforts to kill U.S.-Russia-China cooperation in space exploration within the context of what President John F. Kennedy, who sent us to the Moon, said on that occasion. On September 20, 1963, only months after the Cuban Missile Crisis, and just two months before his assassination, in a speech to the United Nations, President Kennedy stated:

Finally, in a field where the United States and the Soviet Union have a special capacity—in the field of space—there is room for new cooperation, for further joint efforts in the regulation and exploration of space. I include among these possibilities a joint expedition to the Moon . . . Why, therefore, should man’s first flight to the Moon be a matter of national competition? Why should the United States and the Soviet Union, in preparation for such expeditions, become involved in immense duplications of research, construction, and expenditure? Surely, we should explore whether the scientist and astronauts of our two countries—indeed of all the world—cannot work together in the conquest of space, sending someday in this decade to the Moon not the representatives of a single nation, but the representatives of all of our countries.

What a contrast! President Kennedy actually proposed then, what China is now proposing, and President Trump is fighting for, today!

III. The Four Powers and the New System

Dec. 3, 2001

World In Crisis Needs

A New Monetary System

EIRNS/Ortrun Cramer

The LaRouches’ Dec. 3 seminar at New Delhi International Center on “Growing Global Crisis: World Needs A New Monetary System,” was attended by former national cabinet ministers, economists, intellectuals, and journalists. LaRouche speaks next to moderator Prof. Devendra Kaushik.

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

The following is the transcript of the seminar at the India International Center, on Dec. 3, 2001, in New Delhi. Subheads have been added. The moderator, Professor Kaushik, is former chairman of the Center for Russian, East European, and Central Asian Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, and present chairman of Maulana Azad Institute of Asian Studies, Calcutta. This transcript was first published in EIR on Dec. 21, 2001.

EIRNS/Ortrun Cramer

Prof. Devendra Kaushik, who chaired the seminar, welcomed LaRouche as “one of the most powerful thinkers of our times.”

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

Prof. Devendra Kaushik

At the very outset, allow me to extend, on behalf of Maulana Azad Institute of Asian Studies, Calcutta, on my personal behalf, on behalf of many friends and admirers of Mr. LaRouche here, to extend a most cordial welcome to Mr. Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., and Mrs. Helga Zepp-LaRouche. It is really a matter of great pleasure that they are in our midst.

I think, and most of you here will agree with me, that we have with us, one of the most powerful thinkers of our times. A physical economist, an economist with a difference, for whom economics is not just a matter of money, but a commitment to the general welfare, and common good. I’m glad that I have this opportunity to greet and welcome Mr. LaRouche, because I’m associated with an institute which is located in Calcutta, and Calcutta is the first city with which Mr. LaRouche’s association with India had begun. If I’m right, in 1946, he had come there, in the wake of the conclusion of the Second World War. He had been south, in Southeast Asia, while in the U.S. Army. And since then, Mr. LaRouche has been committed to India. He is an admirer, a great admirer of India, and I’m proud that my association with him has enriched my understanding of the ongoing processes in the world.

He is a wise man, of the Renaissance tradition. An economist, who enriched further the ideas of Leibniz, and invented the Leibniz-LaRouche method of quantifying the relationship between technical advances and growth of the physical economy. It’s a pity that in India, LaRouche—though India is very centrally situated in the scheme of things—is not so much known, as we would have liked him to be known; his ideas, I mean. But in many important areas of the world—Ibero-America (Latin America), Africa, Europe, Italy, France, Poland, and in Russia—his ideas are acquiring a great influence.

I’m a student of Russian affairs, and I know how powerful is the impact of his ideas on contemporary Russia: Read Academician Lvov, or Academician Abalkin, or Glazyev, who is chairman of an important Duma committee. His views are expressed, prominently displayed, in the Russian journals, and Russian newspapers, such as Ekonomicheskaya Gazeta, Pravda, Izvestia, and Russki Predprinimatel—I happened to read, it’s a very decent publication, a very important interview given by him. He has appeared several times before the Duma, the State Duma [lower house of parliament] of Russia, for hearings, and I think in Russia, and China also, his ideas, and the ideas, you know, of this couple, here present in our midst—Eurasian Land-Bridge. Mrs. Helga LaRouche is a tireless campaigner for this idea of the Eurasian Land-Bridge, which offers the only hope to redeem this world, which is now besieged by the impending doom of the international financial and monetary system.

I would not like to anticipate what he is going to say here. Once again, I welcome both of you, sir, Mr. LaRouche, and Mrs. Helga, into our midst, and request you to enlighten us with your presentation. Mr. LaRouche.

EIRNS/Ortrun Cramer

EIRNS/Ortrun Cramer

The LaRouches were welcomed in their visit to India by former Prime Minister Chandra Shekhar (top); by former Prime Minister I.K. Gujral (above, talking to Lyndon LaRouche); and by India’s current President, K.R.Narayanan (below).

Office of the President of India

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

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

Thank you. I’m very glad to be here, of course, and of course, I know, or have met, many of you attending, personally, and I’m glad to see you again, always.

What I’ll do is, there are three points I shall make. The idea here is not to present so much a report, in the ordinary sense, but to give an outline of the structure of thinking, which must be used to understand both the present situation, and the probable solutions for the present world crisis.

First of all, we have to redefine history, modern history, because what is usually accepted as modern history, is not modern history; it’s fiction, invented to apologize for the policies of one or another group, and make up, like family histories—you pick invented ancestors, instead of the real ones, and much of history has that character.

We Must Redefine History: The Modern Nation-State

The beginning of modern history goes back, of course, in Europe, to the 15th Century, to a Renaissance. And the significance of that for today, is principally, that a new kind of institution, the modern nation-state, was conceived in Italy in the 15th Century, in the Renaissance. The difference between that, and all preceding forms of civilization, even though there were intimations of that in earlier developments—the essence of this revolution, was that, for the first time, the idea that one group of people could rule over other people as virtual human cattle, was denied to be a principle of law. This was the imperial principle of law, on which, from ancient Mesopotamia, Sparta, the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, and European feudalism had been based, on the idea of a majority of the population being treated by a limited minority, as if they were wild, or tamed, human cattle. And hunted down, bred, utilized, and culled, according to the pleasure of the masters, as the Malthusians today argue: “If the population is excessive, regretably, we’ll have to cut the herd.” The same kind of idea.

So, under the modern nation-state, it was established that there is no moral authority for government, except as that government is efficiently committed to promote the general welfare, the common good, of all of the people over whom it rules, and their posterity. That’s the basis, that principle of the general welfare, or common good, is the foundation. This idea was first brought to successful expression in France, under Louis XI, who made a revolution in creating the foundations of modern France, out of rubbish. This French revolution was echoed in England, by the overthrow of Richard III, and the installation of the government of Henry VII, who was sane, unlike his son, Henry VIII.

So, at that point, the forces of oligarchy, led by Venice, sought to overthrow the nation-state. And the nation-state, as a result, was thrown into a period of civil war, religious war, from 1511, till 1648, until the Treaty of Westphalia. Under these conditions, the possibility of restoring the kind of nation-state which Louis XI of France, or Henry VII of England, or Henri IV of France, had attempted to bring into being, was in jeopardy. And therefore, Europeans looked to the Americas, where colonies, European colonies, had been developed, in the hope that republics of the desired form, could emerge in this area.

This did not succeed in the Spanish area, principally because of the Hapsburg influence internationally, and British influence. But it did succeed in the United States—in what became the United States.

The Ideas of Leibniz Shaped the American Constitutional System

Now, the United States was created with the backing of all the leading intellectual circles of Europe, the good ones. In France, but throughout Europe as a whole. The major intellectual influence in shaping the United States, and its Constitution, was Gottfried Leibniz, the great scientist of the 17th and early 18th Century. The ideas of Leibniz, as opposed to those of Locke, or opposed to those of Hobbes, were the foundation of the American Constitutional system.

The problem we had in creating our republic, is, we had a rotten element inside it. We have the same problem in India, of course, in the freedom of India. You had to take what you had, and make a government of all of the elements, including some which might not have been too agreeable, at the time. We had that too.

We had a financier interest, closely tied to the British East India Company, principally, in New York and Boston, the Boston area. We had also Southern slaveholders, centered in the Carolinas and Georgia. These were elements which polluted the founding of our nation.

In the wake of the Napoleonic Wars—the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars, the United States, which had just been created, became isolated. And thus, the wars of Europe became the determinant of the fate of the United States, which was a small nation, floating like a cockboat on the seas of the world as a whole, and always in jeopardy. We became corrupted. The power of a New York-centered financier group, the power of the slaveholders, increased, until Lincoln led a revolution, which overthrew a British puppet-government, the Confederacy, and established, between 1861 and 1876, the United States as the most powerful single nation-state economy, the most advanced technologically, on this planet.

Growing American Influence

This occurrence, as viewed in 1876, by leading Europeans, led to a revolution in Europe, and Asia. It led to the so-called Meiji reforms, of the 1870s, in Japan. Modern industrial Japan was actually a personal creation of Henry Carey, the leading economist of the world at that time, deploying his student, E. Peshine Smith, into Japan, to guide the Japanese in creating the foundations of a modern economy. At a later point, you had in China, the influence of Sun Yat-sen, who was educated and developed in Honolulu, who became the leader of a struggle for the foundation of modern China.

In Russia, Mendeleyev, the great scientist of Russia, was, in 1876, at the Philadelphia Centennial Exposition. He returned to Russia, delivered his report to Alexander II, and with the later support of Graf Witte, established the American model as the direction in which the Russian economy was being developed. It was Mendeleyev who developed not only the Trans-Siberian Railroad, with the cooperation of Witte in the completion, but also, created most of the industries of Russia, based on the American model. The letters of Mendeleyev to the Tsar, on the subject of industrial projects in regions in which the rail system was being constructed, are a model for reference still today.

In France, there were positive influences after the ouster of Napoleon III. This went on until about the 1890s, in which the American influence was an increasing influence throughout the world, in shaping the direction of reforms in the Old World. In none of these cases, was a true republic developed in Eurasia. You had czarism in Russia. You had the Hirohito system, essentially as we referred to it in the World War II period, in Japan. You had oligarchy-run Europe. You had the Hapsburg tyranny, which was still squatting like a succubus in Vienna. You had all kinds of relics of the past.

And what Europe did, was essentially make certain reforms. The reforms were reforms in feudal institutions. The parliamentary system is a feudal relic. It was created by imposing reforms upon monarchies, in which the forms of parliament, which had been created originally to represent the oligarchy, and advise the monarch, were compelled to make concession on lawmaking, to various levels of popular opinion. And this gave us the parliamentary forms, which people in Europe prize as being a gain. They’re vulnerable forms of government, as you know, because a parliamentary government is inherently subject to destabilization. You can have a parliamentary crisis: The government’s out. So therefore, the problem in parliamentary systems is to maintain a long-term continuity of policy, sufficiently long-term—and I’ll come to that—in order to make the project successful.

So, Presidents are elected, and governments composed, of certain durability, which have democratic features within them, but are durable. Which means that people can make commitments to terms of five to ten years, and longer, in terms of policy. And virtually no reform can be carried out, in almost any country, effectively, and brought to success, in less than a five- to ten-year period—which I’ll get to.

But, despite those shortcomings, we had around the world in the late 19th Century, what looked like an American Century. That is, the influence of the success of the American Revolution, as attested by the developments of 1861-1876, as a model for reform of the world as a whole, and of relations among states.

This changed during the course of the 1890s. The British monarchy recognized, that the development of trans-Eurasian rail systems, and economic development, meant an end to the ability of a maritime power, an imperial maritime power, to dominate the world as a whole.

Remember, historically—as you know from the history, or sometimes prehistoric history of India, in which the Dravidian-speaking language group dominated the entire Indian Ocean region, and its adjoining littoral, as a great maritime power. Sumer was created by Dravidian-speaking peoples. Yemen, Abyssinia, were developed by Dravidian-speaking peoples. The culture which radiated from the subcontinent, radiated all over the oceans, the Indian Ocean, and Asia.

And the British had inherited that idea of maritime power. Economic power was largely based on the littoral areas, adjoining the oceans, or up the riparian rivers, and riparian systems of the rivers. The inland areas of the continents were not adequately developed—as in China today. The great problem in China today, is the coastal region, and the great riparian channels, tend to be developed economically; the inland regions, beyond the reach of the coast, beyond the great riparian conduits of trade, are not developed. And that’s the great problem there.

However, if you develop systems of transport and power, across the continent, as we did in the United States, with the transcontinental railway system, then you can unite a continent, and it becomes cheaper to move freight across the land-mass, and much quicker, than by sea. And this results in a great revolution.

The British React With ‘Geopolitics’

So, therefore, under the conditions typified by the Mendeleyev work, in developing the Trans-Siberian Railroad, the threat was that Eurasia would unite, in cooperative ventures of this sort, linking the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean across the land-mass, and this would make a great revolution in the human condition, under which the interior of Eurasia would become a development area. This, London recognized as a grave threat to the power of the British Empire.

And therefore, the British developed two plans, one typified by Admiral Fischer, the head of the British Navy, who invented the Dreadnought, the so-called Dreadnought policy, to dominate the seas absolutely. And also, to create Kuwait, which was originally owned entirely—stolen by the British monarchy, and owned by it, and created as a source of oil for an oil-fired British Navy, intended for what became known as World War I.

But, the idea was: How do you overthrow and disrupt the tendency for cooperation among France, Germany, Italy (which emerged as a nation during this period), Russia, Japan, China, down to India? How do you do that?

And they came up with the idea called “geopolitics”: Set the nations which you wanted to have cooperating, against one another’s throats. This was called World War I.

World War I began in France in about 1892 with the Dreyfus Affair, which was actually a plan for the overthrow of the existing government of France, making the way for the horror-show which came in later—1898: The power of France was destroyed by Kitchener, above Khartoum, and broke the attempt of the French to create a railroad system which would link Dakar to Djibouti across the Sub-Saharan region. This led to the formation of the Entente Cordiale between France and Edward VII. This led to the Balkan wars, to the increasing alliance with Russia against the Ottomans, with France. This led to the folly of Germany, in allying itself with Austro-Hungary, which lured Germany into the trap of what was called World War I.

The Crucial Feature of Modern History: McKinley’s Assassination

Now, the crucial feature here, which defines modern history, is the 1901 assassination of the President of the United States, McKinley. McKinley was the last President in that period, until Roosevelt, who represented the American System tradition, exemplified by Lincoln. This brought into power a man who was a total British asset, Theodore Roosevelt, who was the nephew of the man who had been leader of the Confederate intelligence service, and trained by him. So, you had a British agent, Teddy Roosevelt—took over the United States, and with his friends in Wall Street, and among the former slave-owners of the Confederacy, established their power over Wall Street. This was done directly by Edward VII through Jacob Schiff, who was Edward VII’s chief agent on Wall Street, who created the Federal Reserve System, and some other things.

Wilson, who’s the important successor of Teddy Roosevelt, after Taft, and was put into power by Roosevelt’s intervention, was a man of a Southern tradition, a Confederacy tradition—not only pro-slavery, but an admirer of the Ku Klux Klan. And the man who, from the White House itself, launched the mass revival of the Ku Klux Klan in the United States, leading to the Ku Klux Klan horrors of the middle-1916 period, through into the 1930s. So, American racism today, is essentially a consequence of the revival of pro-Confederacy views, by a Democratic President, Grover Cleveland, who introduced Jim Crow; by Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, who were advocates of the Southern cause against the Lincoln tradition. And all of whom were allies, and essentially Governor-Generals, for the British monarchy, of the British monarchy.

This began the phenomenon which defines the 20th Century: 1901 on, the Anglo-American Imperial Century.

FDR Interrupts the Anglo-American Imperial Century

The interruption and disturbance of this came with one President, especially: Franklin Roosevelt. Franklin Roosevelt was the great-grandson of one of Hamilton’s collaborators, Isaac Roosevelt, an ally of Hamilton’s. And Franklin Roosevelt represented that family tradition—the patriotic tradition—against what was called the “English tradition,” or the “British tradition.” So, he attempted to use the occasion of a crisis, to attempt to reverse the trend, back to the Lincoln legacy.

This was the cause of the Roosevelt era, its characteristic. And this was the impulse behind Roosevelt’s commitment, up until the time of his death, and just slightly beyond, for decolonizing the entire world. As he warned Churchill, in a famous meeting at Casablanca, Roosevelt’s intention was, that the power of the United States, which would be established by the close of the Second World War, would mean that the United States would have the power to bring about the instant freedom from colonial rule, of all colonial subjects of Portuguese, British, French, and so forth, and Dutch, imperialism.

And Roosevelt’s body was not cold, before the Truman Administration accepted Churchill’s proposal, and Indochina, Indonesia, and other parts of the world, were colonized, or recolonized, again. Which led, of course, to the emergence of the Non-Aligned Movement in the immediate postwar period, in reaction to this kind of recolonization process, and its implications.

So, therefore, we can understand the entire history of this period, in those terms, leading up to the present.

Here are some of the breaking points, which have to be kept in mind. Therefore, you have the 1861-1901 period of U.S. history, and world history, which might be called the period of the ascendancy of the American Revolution’s influence in changing the world as a whole, and threatening to bring about what John Quincy Adams, who had been the actual mentor of Lincoln, had intended: a community of principle, shared among perfectly sovereign nation-states. The intent of Roosevelt was exactly that: that the world should become, in the postwar period, a community of shared principle, among sovereign nation-states, each perfectly sovereign.

This was disrupted, of course, by the 1901 development, the assassination of McKinley, which was done by a British-linked influence, run by a terrorist mob, steered from London. It was broken in 1945, but there were some features to this, complications.

Roosevelt’s impact on the world, and the United States’ impact on the world under Roosevelt, could not be denied. So, although the decolonization policy of Roosevelt was cancelled, within the week he died, nonetheless the Bretton Woods system, created in 1945, essentially, launched after the war, until 1963-1964, functioned very well for the countries which participated in it. You would find in most of the Americas—as in the United States, Canada—Australia, New Zealand, and so forth, and in Japan, and in Western Europe, that the Bretton Woods system functioned to the net benefit of the populations, in terms of an improvement in the standards of living, and similar kinds of benefits. That the world as a whole was better because of that system, despite the injustices, and despite the disparities which were included within it.

With the assassination of Kennedy, this came to an end.

A Paradigm Shift

Now, take the characteristics of this. You had the period from 1962 to 1965—was a period of great crisis. Crisis for India, for example. The India crisis, the war with China. The things that broke Nehru’s heart, were all a reflection of this change. The attempted assassination of President Charles de Gaulle, in 1962. The ouster of Macmillan with the Profumo scandal, orchestrated in that same period, 1963. The assassination of Kennedy, these and other things, were all reflections of a fundamental change, in policy, from the Bretton Woods system.

And with the launching of the Vietnam War and some other things, the policies of the United States and other nations began to be pushed away from a policy of expanding economic progress, economic development, into a policy of Malthusianism, of so-called “neo-Malthusianism.” Under this policy, the world economy has decayed as a whole, consistently, over the entire period, from 1965-1966 to the present time.

The crucial point was 1971. You had the Wilson government in Great Britain, which first inaugurated the destruction of economy. The destruction of the British economy, United Kingdom economy, under Wilson, the first Wilson government, was unbelievable; it was terrific. This was imitated in the United States, beginning 1966-1967. The force initiating this was the Nixon campaign for the Presidency, in 1966-1968. During this period, 1966, Nixon went down to Mississippi, and other places, to negotiate with leaders of the Ku Klux Klan, and allied racists, such as the Trent Lott who is presently the leader of the Republican faction in the U.S. Senate. Therefore, Nixon embraced racism, as an integral policy.

Following Nixon’s introduction of the 1971 destruction of the Bretton Woods system, which led to all of the world financial chaos which is now hitting us, the Democratic Party decided it, too, had to join the racist cause, and therefore Zbigniew Brzezinski picked a fool, Jimmy Carter, to become President. And hand-steered him, and controlled him, with the New York crowd, from the beginning to the end. Jimmy did more to destroy the U.S. economy than any President since the death of Roosevelt. By himself: deregulation; radical introduction of free trade; the introduction of the destruction of the world economy, which was done by Paul Volcker, with his Volcker measures introduced in 1979, which was the policy of the Brzezinski crowd; which has now been continued by Greenspan, the successor of Volcker. So, that system has been the problem.

So, this is a crucial part of the whole process.

During this entire period, from 1945 to 1989, the world was dominated, strategically, by a peculiar kind of alliance, and a hostility, between the Soviet Union and the Anglo-American powers. A hostility which became a kind of partnership, based on hate. Nuclear weapons had been introduced from London by the faction of H.G. Wells and Bertrand Russell, with the explicit proposal, that by introducing nuclear weapons, you would create a situation in which nations would surrender their sovereignty rather than risk war, and therefore would give up sovereignty for world government.

So, this was the arrangement. The way they started it, they started a conflict between the Soviet Union, the United States, and Britain, which was launched from London, which began the entire period. This evolved, from 1961-1962 on, into a peculiar kind of partnership between the two opposing powers, called détente. So, the world was now managed by whatever the United States and Britain, on the one side, and the Soviet government, on the other side, could agree to, in terms of world policy. This was an integral part of the process of disintegration, and marked the significance of the 1962-1965 period. This was the period in which the postwar developments had been brought to the point, through the missile crisis of 1962, where the world was now ruled by a peculiar kind of détente arrangement between two superpower blocs, and the rest of the world was subject to that. This meant doom for all of the aspirations of the Non-Aligned Movement, and similar kinds of things in the developing sector generally.

NSIPS/Paul Zykovsky

“India and China are powerful nations, in their own right. They’re not world powers, and therefore, have been able, in various ways, to resist this [superpower entrapment], as was the characteristic of the Indira Gandhi government.” Below: Nuclear fuel assembly at Hyderabad; above: Mrs. Gandhi campaigning for re-election in 1979.

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

Look at the pattern. India and China are powerful nations, in their own right. They’re not world powers, and therefore, have been able, in various ways, to resist this, as was the characteristic of the Indira Gandhi government, in particular—her governments in particular, to resist this particular entrapment, in this cage, this captivity, of the agreement between two superpower blocs, which was the problem of India, during the entire period of her prime ministership.

How do you negotiate the survival of India, and India’s interest, when the world is dominated by a pair of superpower blocs? That was the problem.

Malthusianism and the Destruction of the Nation-State

So, this led to 1989, and the inevitable collapse of the Soviet system. The collapse of the Soviet system was then seen by the Anglo-American powers, as the occasion for destroying the institution of the nation-state, which had been first introduced to European civilization in the 15th Century, with Louis XI, and with Henry VII. Malthusianism, globalization, free trade, and so forth: These were measures intended to destroy, to eradicate, the roots of the nation-state, and its culture, from the world. This was a policy based largely on destruction. People have been looking for stealing—well, stealing goes on, because that’s the instinct of these creatures, but the essential strategic purpose is destruction, not conquest. Because if you can destroy the institutions which defy you, then you have conquered by default.

This means Malthusianism, which I’ll come to now. It means Malthusianism because, as long as you have to educate a population to master modern technology, the education of that pouplation in science and technology creates a population which is not going to consider itself, would not accept the idea of being human cattle. If you can think, if you understand the laws of the universe, at least in some degree, if you understand the principle that man can improve his condition by willfully mastering nature, then you are not going to accept being cattle. And therefore, if you wish to reduce the human race to a mass of human cattle, ruled over by a minority and oligarchy, like an Anglo-American globalized oligarchy, you have to destroy the ability of people to maintain technological progress. You have to eradicate much of the roots of existing technological progress.

So, now you come along; you say, “We have to defend nature against man.” When you go to defend nature against man, what does that mean? You’re wrong.

So, what you’re doing is, you’re demanding the greatest collapse in the level of the human population, in a rapid period, ever imagined. You’re demanding global genocide. You’re demanding the destruction of those institutions upon which the modern society is based. That is the intent. If you read the literature, if you get into the conferences, you get into the fights with these creatures, who are the advisers and think-tank associates of these kinds of policies, that’s what they say. They say it in one way or another. The best way to smoke it out, is to propose the contrary policy, and they’ll run screaming around like banshees, around the room, around the ceiling. And that is the problem we face.

You have a group of people who have been determined to destroy—and they’ve said it; neo-Malthusiansim, ecologism, globalism: These are the means, the policies, by which the destruction of the human race over several successive generations has been intended.

And it’s working.

Look at Africa: There are virtually no African nations left. Africa has become a no-man’s-land, which Anglo-American and Israeli mercenaries deploy to kill, to organize killing, and to loot raw materials. Look at South Africa: South Africa has virtually no sovereignty over its own raw materials resources. Anglo-American interests control the thing entirely. Look in Central Africa, the Great Lakes region. Look at it today: You have a genocide going on, beyond belief. This is the image of the world, the future world, if we let it go that way. The image for India. It’s the way to understand what’s going on in Southeast Asia.

Economics: Mankind Can Change Its Population-Density

Now, let’s look at economics, from that standpoint. The issue then becomes that of economics, in that sense.

The crucial thing is that mankind is the only species which has the willful capability of increasing its population-density. No other species can do that, willfully. No other species can change its own apparent nature. Species can adapt to their conditions, but they can not change their nature. And that’s the essence of economics, and that’s the essence of the issue in economics today.

We have one kind of economics which is essentially Malthusian by implication: That’s called “accounting.” It’s called “contemporary accepted science.” Because an accounting is essentially linear. It does not allow for any radical change in fundamental principles of science. It does not allow for that kind of society. You teach people how to manage existing technologies, not how to introduce new ones.

For example, let’s take the case of India, as I saw it when Mrs. Gandhi was still Prime Minister. I looked at the IITs [Indian Institutes of Technology]; I looked at the problem in India. India was producing some of the world’s leading academically qualified people, who were being exported to the United States and Europe, and elsewhere. You took the top 10% of the graduates of IITs, and they were being shipped around the world, to find employment outside of India, not in India.

Then you look at the other problem which is imposed by India’s defense of itself, against the IMF and similar predatory institutions, which meant that you maintained a tight budget, which was intended to protect this precious independence of India, which depended upon the farmer. Therefore, you could not open up the Indian market for free trade. Because once you did so, then the farmer would no longer be free, as a farmer, and then India would be torn apart, as other countries has been torn apart, which do not have agricultural independence.

So, Mrs. Gandhi, in a sense, was right, in her tight-money policies, her tight policies against conceding to free-trade demands, and her tight administration of the policy. But the effect was horrible. The effect was in the universities itself. What did we see in the IITs, the ones I visited? You saw a lack of pedagogical experimental apparatus. You saw a lack of access to research experimental development, which meant that you were doing something terrible to anyone who’s studying physical sciences in particular. You’re denying them the ability to understand physical science, which means you’re producing a nation of great mathematicians, in one sense, but who are not necessarily good physical scientists; who do not have the impulse to go out and do what India needs: which is, develop science, and apply it to the Indian production, the Indian population itself, to raise the level of productivity of the land and people of India.

So, there was a trap: Where, in order to defend India as it was, India was being denied the ability to develop India as it must become. The same problem, is the problem we see in China. You have an agricultural population, which is precious. The independence of the country depends upon that food supply, by that population, to be the independence of the country. It’s also a source of export income. You see in China a similar characteristic; a different kind of situation, but a similar problem. Here are two countries, the countries with the largest population of any country on this planet, neither of which has had the freedom to fully develop scientifically, the productive forces of its own nation. And this has resulted in a stagnation, in certain respects, within the national economy.

We see the same thing in other parts of the world. But, this is the Indian situation, and I refer to it in particular, because it’s concrete.

Science: ‘Plausibility’ vs. Solving a Paradox

Now, the problem is this: When you teach science at the blackboard, you are creating a problem. Because the fraud that is created, is that the teacher attempts to make the scientific discovery plausible, without giving the student the experience of the paradox, which provokes the discovery of the principle. The attempt is made to make the scientific principle plausible, by a mathematical exposition at the blackboard. When, in point of fact—. Let’s take two great discoveries, as points in fact. Modern, comprehensive mathematical physics was begun essentially by Nicolaus of Cusa, who was the founder of modern mathematical physical science, and followers of Cusa—Luca Pacioli of Italy, and his promising student, Leonardo da Vinci.

The great, explicit follower of Cusa, Pacioli, and da Vinci, was Johannes Kepler. Johannes Kepler was the founder of modern, comprehensive mathematic physics. He was the discoverer of universal gravitation, and no one else. This discovery is recorded, and the originality of his discovery is recorded, in his famous 1609 publication, The New Astronomy. The completion of these discoveries by him, was essentially summed up in his World Harmony, where he went to the planetary system as a whole.

Now, the discovery in this case was based on, what? All previous European systems—that of the hoaxster, Claudius Ptolemy, that of Copernicus, and that of Tycho Brahe—were all intrinsically failures. Because they assumed that the universe functioned in terms of perfectly circular motion, as defined by the blackboard; by drawing circles on a blackboard, or on paper, or similar kinds of things. And it doesn’t. Kepler pointed out—that is, in the orbit of Mars—that you had an apparent eccentricity: that the orbit was elliptical, rather than circular. And, through his experimental work on this question, showed that there was a principle operating, which could not be explained at the blackboard; but that there was a principle existing outside the blackboard, and similar minds—an intention, which was governing the regularity of these astronomical cycles. This was the principle of gravitation.

You had a similar discovery, by Pierre Fermat, the French scientist, who showed that, in reflection, as opposed to refraction, it might appear—as the fellow at the blackboard would argue—that the light is propagated in terms of shortest distance. But, he also discovered, that, in terms of refraction, light is refracted in terms of quickest time.

Therefore, geometry, as taught at the blackboard, does not correspond—and mathematics, as taught at the blackboard, does not correspond to reality.

What is at stake here? It’s a very elementary principle, which Vernadsky struck upon from a different standpoint; which is the difference between economics as taught today, and economics as a physical science. Economics, as taught today, is linear. Linear mathematics, which has no correspondence to physical reality. It is at the blackboard; it is on the computer; it is linear.

It’s wrong.

The collapse of the so-called “New Economy.” The great bubble—the so-called Information Theory bubble, which has just collapsed catastrophically around the planet, is a demonstration that von Neumann was a hoaxster and an idiot, and Wiener, too. But, people believed in it, because they wished to believe that you could explain science and economics at the blackboard. Not by work. Not by actual production.

Improving the Power of Man Over the Universe

It also denies the nature of man, which is the crucial issue. Man is the only creature, who can make discoveries, in the way in which Kepler and Fermat did. The human mind is capable of a capacity, which sees the world outside the limits of so-called “sense certainty.” Sense-certainty is what? Sense-certainty, or the senses, do not show us the real world. The senses report to us, the experience of a part of our biological apparatus, and try to interpret the experience on the periphery of our system, and try to find out what is going on, outside our skins, to cause the things that we feel inside our skins. This process of discovery is what is properly called “science.”

How do we discover? We discover a paradox. We discover, that experience shows us, that some things don’t work the way our senses tend to suggest they do. Microphysics, for example, is a perfect expression of this: All of microphysics is based on things which are efficient, which determine our power to exist, especially today, but which exist beyond the power of our senses to detect. How do we know these things? We know these things, because we solve paradoxes, with a power of the mind, of insight into the significance of certain paradoxes in our experience. Like physical paradoxes. Like the paradox that Kepler used, to discover gravitation. The paradox which Fermat introduced, which caused modern European science to develop a so-called relativity of physical space-time conception.

The same thing is true in economics. The basis of man’s increased power over the universe, the power to exist, the power to increase the life-span of populations, and by increasing the life-span of populations, increase the possibility of the development of populations. Because if you have a life-expectancy of 30 to 40 years, how can you have a developed population? Who is going to support the children, for 20 to 25 years in development, if the parents are dying between the ages of 30 and 40? You can’t do it. Impossible. Therefore, the important thing is: How can we increase man’s power to act, in and over the universe, to improve the life-span of our people? To increase the amount of development we allow for our children, who are really children from the ages, essentially, of zero to 25, today, in terms of professional development? How can we provide 25 years of life, of a child, to the full development of that child’s cognitive capabilities as a future adult? How can we do that? We must improve the productive powers of labor, to the included effect, of increasing life-span, increasing the possibility of health-care to [deal with any condition] which threatens life-span. And, by these means, we make it possible to improve the quality of man.

We educate people: How, properly? Not how to learn how to repeat what someone said before us, but how to re-experience the great discoveries from the past. For example: Why is Vedic and Sanskrit so important for study in India? Because, we know that that aspect of the language, as Panini reflected, came from a long time before. I saw in one of the recent science magazines, a recent discovery, of an argument among three different views on the significance of river systems, which obviously existed, in part to the west of here, some ancient times ago. This is important! Also, as Tilak emphasized; we know these things today, we know scientifically, that Tilak was right: That some of the ancient calendars, which are transmitted to India, come from ocean cultures, which are Arctic Ocean cultures! We also know, from the work of Barry Fell and others, who traced some of these linguistic patterns throughout the waters of the Pacific and Southeast Asia, that there were great maritime cultures, which existed, which have had impact upon people.

And, if we’re going to understand the roots of language, if we’re going to understand where our people came from, if we’re going to understand the various influences which shaped the culture, which a cultivated person can have today in any of these countries, they must, in a sense, be allowed to experience what their remote ancestors experienced, in the way of important discoveries. Ancient poetry, for example, is extremely important for this, especially the Classical forms of ancient poetry, which reveal to us certain characteristics of language. And, enable us to criticize the language we’re using today, by insight into how language is developed.

So, the key thing, is to develop a person, who is—what? Who is an effective reflection of the great contributions of past mankind to the present, especially of the immediate population, of which he’s a part, the immediate culture of which the person is a part. And, to be qualified to address not only the current problems, but to foresee the requirements, which the future must have, from the present.

And, this is economics: That the idea of accounting for things, of course, is obviously necessary. But we should never try to develop an economy based on accounting. We should rather look at the past, the present, and the future, and say: “How can we foster the development and utilization, of those discoveries of principle, which represent man’s discovery of increased power over nature? And, how do we organize those discoveries, and create the conditions of work, under which we can bring forth the future?”

Therefore, man is, in a sense, mortal, but immortal: Man is mortal in the sense that our lives have a beginning and an end. We are immortal, as no animal is immortal, because we are capable of re-experiencing cognitive discoveries of principle, which no animal can make. We benefit from these discoveries from our predecessors, from whom those discoveries are transmitted to us. Our children should know those discoveries. We should not die, without transmitting those discoveries to our children. Our children should learn from that process of re-experiencing discoveries, how to make their own discoveries; how to judge the present and the future. We must have a sense of mission, of what mankind must accomplish, 40, 50, 100 years from now—a vision of what that must be. We must make our policies, today, on that basis.

Government of India

Investment in infrastructure is what the nation’s progress depends on, and it requires thinking in 25-year, or one-generation, cycles— not in terms of “shareholder value.” Here, India’s Bhakra Dam.

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

Infrastructure: The Essence of Economy

For example, just in conclusion, on this point: Infrastructure, basic economic infrastructure—transportation, power, water management, education; health care is a part of the same thing. These are the essence of economy! Well, the science of economy, is not what someone does, sitting on a pile of dirt, with a certain technology. The ability of that technology to work, depends upon the infrastructure: If you want an efficient economy, you must have an efficient mass-transit system, especially for freight, as well as people. If you wish an efficient economy, you must have a health-care system: You can’t have essential people dying on you, for reason of diseases, which you could cure. Therefore, you must have a universal health-care system: Because you can’t protect one person against conditions that threaten life if you don’t protect all. Therefore, you have to have a universal health-care approach. No matter whether it’s private, or public—it must, in net effect, be a universal health-care system.

The investments in infrastructure, improvements of land—for example: Let’s take the question of the water management of India. How do we get sufficient water into the Deccan, for an extended period, in order to transform the potential of the population of the Deccan? What kind of investment is that? That’s an investment, which involves approximately a 25-year, or one-generation cycle, to get that thing fully in operation and self-sustaining, before the benefits are fully realized.

What about the question of power development, in India? Well, a nuclear plant: The optimum nuclear plant, today, is a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor, which runs between about 120 to 200 megawatt output. This kind of plant, which is the safest kind of plant we now have—which is being used in South Africa, it’s being developed, also, in China, which they got from Germany—would be optimal for India, because it’s very readily adapted to the so-called “thorium cycle.” And, the thorium cycle is very valuable, in the sense that it is not a weapons-oriented cycle of fission. Therefore, since India has a good thorium potential, the idea of using a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor in the thorium cycle, is optimal for India, as a peculiarly Indian development. Which would also fit the needs of countries which would desire such reactors, in the vicinity of India’s market. If you have these kinds of things, placed around India, at the right locations, you have, for the present time, the optimal source of energy, for development in any part of the country you choose.

But, these kinds of things, like an educational system, are essentially a quarter-century investment. And, therefore, how do we do this? How do we get this? We create public credit. That is, we go into debt; the government goes into debt, to create the cheap credit, to make these long-term investments possible. And so, these come out as 25-year-span investments—some longer, some shorter. You invest in an industry: What does it take to invest in a technology in an industry—a new technology? This means: Is it a five-year investment, a ten-year investment? Just to design a new product! A 10- to 15-years’ investment to cycle out the investment in a machine tool, of a new type, a new technology. You must have credit for this.

And, therefore, we must organize the economy, around long-term thinking. What are good long-term prospects for humanity? For 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 years? No government is thinking, unless it’s thinking 25 years ahead! Because the effects you desire, the roads you’re going to take, will affect the nation for 25 years to come. It will also affect relations among nations, for a quarter-century, or longer, to come.

So, we must choose the road we’re going to walk into the future. We must create the impetus, for walking in the future. We must think of ourselves, not in terms of the satisfaction we get, from what we eat, or enjoy as pleasure, or entertainment today. We must derive our pleasure from the joy, as a poor parent does, in fostering the development of a child for the future. We must think of ourselves in the present, as creating the future, and doing nothing shameful in the eyes of the past. And find our identity, which is a kind of spiritual identity—as distinct from the sense-certainty identity—in that process.

The Current System Can Not Be Saved

Today, we have, with the breakdown of the present corrupt system—and this system can not be saved: The present monetary and financial system can not be saved. Anybody who is trying to save it, by internal reforms, is a fool! It can not be saved. You have to cancel it! Don’t treat that as the mother of economy. The mother of economy, a modern economy, is the sovereign nation-state. You have to say, Marx was an idiot, when he invented the term “capital,” as he used it: There is no such thing as capitalism, except as a form of disease: It’s called “the British disease”! The ideal form of modern economy, is the American System, which was created by all of Europe, and which was admired greatly in other parts of the world, for many years, until recent times.

The American System of political-economy, as set forth by various Americans, including the first Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton, is elementary: The state is responsible for infrastructure. It must control all credit. It must direct banking. It must ensure the flow of credit to those things, which are useful to the nation. The things that are required, are: One, basic economic infrastructure. Second, you must foster inventions—art, improvements; and foster the entrepreneurs who are willing to invest, and risk, in making those improvements. You must protect the markets, which give these entrepreneurs the opportunity to bring their inventions to fruition, not subject to the ravages of free trade. That is the American System. That is the system of economy which is derived, in principle, not from the United States by itself, but from all of Europe’s knowledge, in bringing together the idea of the modern nation-state. It’s a form of government, whose existence and motive must be the promotion of the improvement of the general welfare, of all of the existing people, and their posterity.

And that must be government.

We’ve come to a time, when the alternative has failed. Free trade, globalization, and so forth, have become horror-shows, which destroy us. The floating-exchange-rate system has destroyed the world. It must end.

Government of India

“Indira Gandhi was right, in her instinct for protectionism. Her father, and others, were right, in the Non-Aligned Movement, in saying, ‘You can not function, merely on national protectionism. You must find a new, more just, world economic order.’ ” Indian founding father Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi’s father, tours a steel plant at Roukela in 1961.

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

We look back to the period, 1945-1963, ’64, and we find that the old Bretton Woods system, the fixed-exchange-rate system, with a lot of regulation, a lot of protectionism, worked. India’s survival, for example, has been based on the limit imposed by India’s instinct for protectionism. Otherwise, India would have been crushed, as many other countries were crushed. Indira Gandhi was right, in her instinct for protectionism. Her father, and others, were right, in the Non-Aligned Movement, in saying, “You can not function, merely on national protectionism. You must find a new, more just, world economic order, in which the possibility of utilizing these principles, can work, can succeed.” Not in the constraints under which Mrs. Gandhi, for example, had to operate, in her managing the system.

And, then, we simply say: “We do it that way. We learned from the lessons of experience. We take the models of the past which did work. We apply those models, because they will be most acceptable, because we can prove experimentally, they were right. We do that.” Now, how do we do that? Well, we have to do what the Non-Aligned nations really wished to do. What we have to do is, we have to take the crisis, in which it is easily demonstrated, that everybody who wants to continue the present system, is some kind of an idiot! And, a dangerous one, at that. We have to say, “We have to go back to the modern nation-state as a matter of principle. And, nation-states which wish to survive, must accept the fact, that the present monetary system, the present financial system, is a hopeless piece of rubbish. And, don’t try to kill your children, to save the system.

“We don’t need it. If we, as governments, or a number of governments, agree—as sovereign governments, representing sovereign nations and sovereign peoples, if we agree, to put this stinking, rotten system into bankruptcy reorganization; and to say, we’re going to continue the economy, but not the monetary and financial system, then we use the authority of sovereign nation-states, and agreements among sovereign nation-states, to put this stinking hulk into bankruptcy reorganization!

“We, as a group of nations, make agreements among ourselves, on credit, which we will create, by agreement among states—and this credit among states, will be used through banking channels, which we control, including private banking channels; we will put the money through banking channels, for the required purpose, in order to make long-term credit agreements, under which long-term transmission of technology can occur, in order to save the world economy.”

And, that is exactly what we proposed in terms of the Eurasian Land-Bridge. The present situation is: That, if we can agree, and understand that the nations of East and South Asia require an early, and rapid infusion of technology, to develop these economies so that they can survive; and if this can be done through credit arrangements, extended by governments for periods—of within a 25-year period, at interest rates of 1 to 2% simple interest, on long term; and if we take the great infrastructure projects and so forth, as the driver force; and if we unite the need of Western Europe for markets, for this type of technology, and the role of Russia, as the transmission belt between East and South Asia, and Western Europe; and if we think of this as the center of the world, and bring nations in Africa, in the Americas, into the same arrangement, then we have the basis for creating a new monetary system, under which this world can come out of this mess.

If we do not make such agreements—which is the other side of the thing; if we do not, then we’re headed for a new dark age.

Thank you.

Professor Kaushik: I think we just had a highly stimulating, thought-provoking lecture. It looked as if we are attending lectures at various faculties—history, economics, science, education, culture. But, the fact is, that all these lectures are delivered by a single person in, a very, very integrated manner, in a single auditorium, and we don’t have to rush from one faculty to another, in order to learn lessons.

I thank Mr. LaRouche for his brilliant exposition. And, before we throw open his presentation for discussion, I think Mrs. Helga LaRouche would like to say something, just to supplement it, with her ideas on the Eurasian Land-Bridge. And, then we can have a discussion.

EIRNS/Ortrun Cramer

Helga LaRouche pays a visit to Raj Gat, the shrine of the ashes of the great spiritual leader of India’s unity and independence from Great Britain, Mohandas K. Gandhi.

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

Helga Zepp-LaRouche:

The Urgency of the Eurasian Land-Bridge

Very briefly. Mr. LaRouche gave you the historical evolution of the idea of Eurasian infrastructural integration. Now, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the idea of uniting Europe and Asia, through such infrastructure corridors, and, in that way, elevating the populations of the frequently land-locked areas, to the same level which before, only maritime cultures enjoyed, was an acute item on the agenda. So, in 1989, Mr. LaRouche had the brilliant idea, immediately after the fall of the Wall, to extend these corridors eastward, into Eurasia. After the disintegration of the Soviet Union, around 1991, we developed the first comprehensive proposal of such a Eurasian integration. And, for several years, we were like lone voices crying out in the desert, propagandizing such a policy.

And, a good thing is that, now, especially in the last year or so, after Putin became President of Russia, this is no longer just an idea and a program, but many, many projects are under way, to integrate Eurasia in this way: For example, between Japan and Russia, the idea of building a tunnel to Sakhalin Island; the integration of the South-North Korean railway, with the Siberian railway; to have the Siberian railway open up the northern regions of Russia, which are a tremendous wealth of raw materials, and could be a tremendous source of development for the entire continent. The Chinese government, with its westward orientation, recognizing that the U.S. market as an export market for Chinese products is disappearing, is now moving very fast in the direction of connecting the Old Silk Road with the European and Middle Eastern regions. Egypt is playing a very important role, by recognizing that it is both an Asian and an African country. And especially given the extremely proud historical tradition, Egypt, being one of the cradles of mankind, is recognizing that, if it goes back to its ancient tradition, in being a promoter of universal development, that the modern function of Egypt is to connect the Eurasian Land-Bridge, through infrastructure, into Africa, and in that way, creating the real possibility to save Africa, from an otherwise certain death.

So, one of the concerns which brought us to India, at this point, is to try to get the Indian elite, in particular, to recognize that a renewed effort has to be made by the planners of this country, because the moment of crisis will come very, very soon. And, as a matter of fact, it’s not one second too late, because we’re in the middle of this financial collapse. And, if people have the right conception, then this crisis can be used to put the new world economic order, based upon the Eurasian Land-Bridge, back on the agenda; and, not only on the agenda, but to realize it.

So, I’m actually optimistic, because, while there is a great danger to civilization right now, the positive thing is that many forces in the world are moving to save mankind from collapse.

I just wanted to add these short remarks.

Dialogue With LaRouche

Professor Kaushik: Thank you, Mrs. LaRouche, for brilliantly supplementing Mr. LaRouche’s ideas. I think we have some time at our disposal for discussion. So I throw it open for discussion and comments.

Dr. V.K. Chopra: I’ve listened to your fascinating address with great admiration and respect. In spite of my incredibly good formal education, and nearly 60 years of working experience, your address made me feel how ignorant and uneducated I am about world history. I would very much like to have your address in print, to be able to study intimately and educate myself. Regarding your prescriptions for the future, first of all, I fervently wish that we see you in the White House in 2004. [LaRouche: Thank you.] That in that high position, you will help implement the idea that you mentioned about the nation-state in your concluding part of the address.

LaRouche: Thank you very much.

EIRNS

Dr. Nirupa Sen, editor of the Indian journal Current Science, questions Lyndon and Helga LaRouche at the New Delhi seminar.

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

The 40-Year Development of India

Q: I’m Dr. Nirupa Sen, correspondent for Current Science. This is a question about what is your plan for the development of India, which you had sponsored. Are the plans, whatever is in the plan document, is it still relevant at this point of time? And, during your visit to India, what has been the response by the elites, regarding planning for the future of India? What has been the response to this generally?

LaRouche: Well, I would say the 40-year plan we did before, is an old plan. Now, 20 years later, the world has changed. It was done specifically with the idea Mrs. Gandhi was then Prime Minister, and our intent was to provide to her—we’d had discussion with her before, in earlier times—and it seemed that the most useful thing we could do for India, since she was disposed to know about such things, was to provide something that she and her associates could use in India, to devise a plan for India. Because we thought that the long-term view was needed, and we thought that about two generations would be required to realize anything that India would accept as a long-term view. And she, of course, was sympathetic, because she would always look at the poor of India, as her reference point: If it doesn’t benefit the poor, there’s something wrong. And that’s my view. If it doesn’t benefit the poor of India, to elevate their station, we’ve failed. If you’ve benefitted the poor, and uplifted them, why, then you’re moving the whole country in the right direction.

Because we’ve seen things, as Mrs. Y— pointed out to us, at one of the villages we visited, you can see the problem of the teachers in trying to get the parents to accept, bringing the children to the schools, the teachers who are devoted to trying to help these students, these young fellows. So that in order to make the revolution in India that was required, you would have to actually motivate the process in which education would really take off, and people would understand the importance of supporting it.

So, we said 40 years. And we looked at some of the things that are required—there were two or three generations required. So, it’s still relevant. I would simply situate the same way of thinking, with some of the same objectives, today.

Q: The second part of my question: What response has there been by the policy planners of today, in the country, to your—?

Lyndon LaRouche during an earlier visit to India, speaking at the Indian World Affairs Council in 1982; at that time, his 40-year development proposal, India In The Year 2020, was published in India and internationally. Many of the New Delhi seminar participants knew this LaRouche program well.

EIRNS

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

LaRouche: Basically, it’s been more of a spiritual and factual character, than anything else. Coming back to India—. You see, my view of relations is largely a spiritual one, in my sense of the term “spiritual.” That is, the cognitive powers of mind must be engaged; you must engage in transmitting concepts back and forth, not just words, not information. And my concern has been to establish relations, or re-establish relations, with people who think, who are the thinkers, people who are typical of the thinkers in India, knowing that the radiation of thinking, among thinking people, is the way in which science works, and in which politics really works. And therefore, I was more concerned to have the opportunity to report on certain things, which I thought Indians ought to hear from me, personally, because I’m prepared to tell the truth, whereas some other people from my country are not. And that India should have the advantage of hearing some of the truth of the matter, so that they could judge for themselves, how to look at some of these problems.

But, mainly that. It was spiritual. What do we think? To engage, to set forth channels for the future, where we’re more efficiently engaged in communicating ideas, which might lead to useful results.

The U.S. Role in the Eurasian

Land-Bridge Project

Vinod Sehgal: [former Indian military attaché to France] Two short questions, Mr. LaRouche. First thing, I do read publications worldwide, so at this point in time, which group or grouping would be the prime mover for pushing the Eurasian corridors, giving them effect?

Second question: Should it come about, what you are propagating, will it to some extent, diminish the power of the U.S.A.? And should that be the case, would they not oppose it? Thank you.

LaRouche: I think your question—let’s take the second one first, because it’s more straightforward.

No, it does not diminish the power of the United States; it increases the power it should have, while diminishing the power it shouldn’t have.

For example, I live in a country where, for the past period, from 1977, the beginning of the Carter Administration to the present, 80% of the population, of family-income brackets, used to represent the overwhelming majority of the national income. Today, the 80% of family-income brackets, the lower 80%, represent the actual abyss in share of national income. Which means that we’ve been doing something terribly wrong since Carter, especially since Carter, economically.

Now, I want a nation—I’m an older man, I won’t live forever (I don’t think—nobody’s offered me that). And therefore, I see this condition of my country, I say, “The country is not going to survive, unless we reverse this tendency.” The power of the United States should lie in the quality of its people, and the quality of the development of its people, and its historic mission, which, in my view, the historic mission of the United States is: Bring forth on this planet, a community of principle among perfectly sovereign nation-states, to end the last vestige of colonialism and empire, in any form, or guise. The point is, that there’s a complication: is that any people has a certain cultural distinction, which tends to make that people a suitable subject of a national identity. And even though we may have exactly the same ideas, our cultural antecedents are different. And therefore, we approach the discussion of these ideas, in a somewhat different way, on consideration of our own respective national antecedents.

Therefore, when a nation wants to deliberate, it has the advantage, as a nation, of deliberating in terms of shared cultural antecedents, for its present ideas, even though the resulting ideas may be exactly the same as by another nation. Therefore, I think that the nation-state, the perfectly sovereign nation-state, is the form of society which must exist into the infinite future. We must not aspire to change that. Therefore, we must strengthen the right of every nation to be a sovereign nation-state, in the true sense. On that basis, we must now come to agreement on those things which are truly in the common interest of all mankind, and therefore, the relations—. That is my purpose.

The United States, because of the superiority of its Constitution—not the implementation of its Constitution, which may be another story, recently, right?—but the Constitution, which is based on the idea of a sovereign nation-state republic, a Presidential republic, which I think has proven to be the best form of republic you can have. That is, you must have an institution of some degree of relative permanence, which has authority, but which also has the consent of the people. And it must be based on a Constitutional—not a set of laws, but a Constitutional set of principles, by which the people cooperate and develop their laws. And that is the mission of the United States, to play that role, bestowed upon it by European civilization, in enabling us to come into being.

And therefore, that’s the power I desire.

The United States, as part of an Anglo-American financier interest, to dominate the world as an imperial maritime power, which is the present aspiration of some in my country, I abhor. And the sooner that’s gone, the happier I’ll be.

Russia’s Eurasian Character

Now, on the influence: Curiously, but not accidentally, the most important influence I think I have outside my own country, is in Russia. This has a long history to it—not an unturbulent history, as some here know—but it’s a long history.

First of all, the importance of Russia is, that there are only three national cultures on this planet, which have a true sense of sovereignty in respect to the world as a whole. India has a sense of sovereignty in respect to Asia. China has a sense of sovereignty in respect to Asia. But when it comes to managing world affairs, the only three cultures which will assay to manage world affairs, are the British monarchy, the culture of the United States, and the culture of Russia. None of which have been colonized, none of which—at least not in modern times—none of which have been occupied by foreign powers, at least not in modern times. And therefore, we have deep in our culture, an imbedded sense of authority. So, when it comes to saying, “Overturn this piece of junk called the present monetary system,” an American or Russian can say that readily. And the British monarchy would say, “Well, if we chose to do it, we might do it.” That sort of thing.

But the problem is, that countries of continental Europe, the countries of Asia, do not think that way. They think of: How do we learn to reform the existing system, to live within it? Don’t destroy the house, but find better quarters within it.

FIGURE 1

The New Russia-Iran-India Transport Corridor

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

And thus, Russia, which was a power, and which is a power in its instinct, responds differently than other nations. Under Yeltsin, no. Under Putin, yes. I can’t—I’m not going to underwrite Putin. But I say: The difference is that Putin represents a Russian President who represents Russia, where Yeltsin didn’t. And therefore, whatever he does, he’s Russian. He proceeds from the sense of Russia’s role on a world scale. His negotiations with India are exemplary. His negotiations with Japan; especially with China; the intervention in trying to bring the two Koreas together, despite the U.S. effort to separate them again—these kinds of things. The negotiations with, going to Kazakstan, the trip of the Pope to Kazakstan, and the instant welcoming of that by Putin. Other things of this sort. And the dealing with the United States.

So therefore, what’s happened is, the transformation of Russia, which has gone through three phases in this century—more than three, but three principal phases: from czarism, and its breakdown; from Lenin and what followed, to the breakdown in 1989-1991; and now the breakdown of the world globalization system. Globalization is now effectively dead, or else we are dead—one of the two.

So therefore we come to a point, at which you need people who are willing to think in terms of: “What are we going to do about the condition of this world? Not the condition of our nation, but the condition of this world?”

In Russia, there’s a current, which is largely centered in the intelligentsia of Russia, many of whom were intelligentsia as part of the old Soviet system, many were dissenters within that system. But they’re different from the old Communists, the old Marxian Communists. They’re different in the sense, that, as I do, they see the individual as the maker of history; we do not believe in “objective forces of history.” We do not sit back and say, “We have to follow world public opinion, the objective forces of history.” World public opinion today stinks. I don’t follow it. I propose to change it. We know we have to change it. We know we have to change the ideas within countries.

Therefore, the responsibility is like that of the scientist. No scientist has learned anything if he doesn’t make a revolution. No political leader is worth much, unless he makes a revolution. Because there always are challenges, which require leaders who can pull the institutions of society away from their habituated ideas, into the new ideas which the society must adopt. And I’ve expressed this with this effort.

We had two conferences in Russia: One, which my representatives were at, where my paper was submitted; a recent one, on the spirit of science in Russia. Another one, which will occur soon. Both involve a recently deceased friend of mine, Pobisk Kuznetsov, a Russian scientist of some significance, and which represents the core of the Russian scientific community, which were all his friends, including all of the scientific institutions. And I proposed that we have a discussion of the continuity of the work of Mendeleyev and of Vernadsky. Now, I don’t completely agree with Vernadsky’s picture, but Vernadsky was a great scientist, and a great discoverer—very valuable for all of Asia. Because, what we’re engaged in now, is a great transformation of the noösphere. That’s the way to look at it. We’ve got to transform the biosphere, and the noösphere, into forms which are both sound, scientifically, and also in the interest of mankind, of the nations.

Therefore, as we look at the Central Asia and North Asia aspect of Eurasian cooperation, the question of the ecological development, the biospheric development, the noösphere development of Central Asia, and into the tundra regions of North Asia, is the key part of the development of the Eurasian continent. My view is that Russia is a Eurasian nation. It is not simply in Europe and Asia, but it is Eurasian in character. It has Eurasian instincts as a nation, as a national body. It has ties to China, to India, to other countries, which are crucial, which are unique. That doesn’t mean that India and China always agree with Russia, but it means it’s a bridge country, between Western Europe and the countries of East and South Asia. And therefore, my concern is to get Russians to adopt that view, and thus, to help to bring together—.

For example: Let’s take the question of bilateral relations between China and India, which are much discussed here, and I suppose are much discussed in China as well. How do you deal with the fact that, especially since 1962, there has been a continuing sense of a potential military conflict between China and India, which affects all of us? How do you bring these nations together? How do you define a common interest, over and above this continuing issue of conflict?

I’ve suggested, as also every Asian nation, East Asia and so forth, is inherently in conflict. Korea with Japan. Japan with China, and so forth. Southeast Asia, the same. Within Southeast Asia, within Indonesia, there’s conflict. So the problem of Asia, is these conflicts, these traditional and other conflicts, which make it difficult to set up any long-term, durable agreement, especially on a bilateral basis. My view is that on a multilateral basis, if we can create a platform of common interest, which is more compelling than any bilateral conflict, that nations will find the impulse to overcome the causes of bilateral conflict, and come to a durable sense of common interest. And I think that Russia is the nation, which has come through czarism, Communism, and, worst of all, liberalism, and now hates the stuff, in a world which has to abandon economic liberalism as the price of its survival. You can not be an economic liberal, and actually expect to contribute much to the survival of your nation in any part of the world today.

So, therefore, we need to create a platform of perceived common interest, in a new order of relations among sovereign states. And Russia, I think, is prepared to play that role, whereas nations such as Italy, Germany, France, are not. And therefore, Russia is one of the best defenders, as being in Eurasia, of the idea of a specifically Eurasian interest of cooperation. And it becomes, therefore, one of the best catalysts for bringing the United States into that picture. Even though the present President of the United States does not please me, in any particular respect, nonetheless, the relationship which has developed between Putin and Bush, since their meeting in the Balkans, and the more recent developments of Sept. 11, can become, and should become, the basis for a sense of a commonality, a mutuality of interest, between the United States and the Americas in general, and Eurasia. If that commonality of interest can be established, then the fate of Africa is also ensured.

EIRNS/Paul Zykovsky

J.C. Kapur: “Whenever an endeavor has been made to destroy the nation-state, they have rushed to destroy the culture.”

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

The Preservation of the Nation-State

J.C. Kapur: [publisher of the magazine World Affairs and owner of the Kapur Solar Farm] I would just like to make a small comment, that I think one of the most significant things, which you have said in your speech here, and which we are confronted with in India, in the process of our development toward the future, would be the destruction of the nation-state. You said, destruction of the nation-state to a considerable extent, has been realized in Africa, has been largely realized through genocide, or whatever arguments you may have.

Now, to destroy a nation-state like India, which is 6-7,000 years of history, and if you did still not destroy it, after 500 invasions and 300 years of colonialism—we are still around. Why are we around? Why is this nation not destroyed?

So, I would say that behind that, is the cultural situation in India. There is a hidden, psychic link which connects people all the way from the lowest corner of India to the north: that hidden psychic link. So somehow, whenever an endeavor has been made to destroy the nation-state, they have rushed to destroy the culture. Because it’s obvious that without the destruction of the culture, the destruction of the nation-state can not take place.

So that is why, amongst the things which you have seen today happening in this country, is an attempt on the culture. Whether you are meeting differences between Muslims and Hindus, which in a pluralistic country which accepted everything, which allowed everybody to come in—that break is taking place. They are trying to create rifts between the Christians and the Hindus, who protected the Christians in the other areas, to come to India. Seeing the whole process. So, therefore, I think it is the most significant thing, globalization can not function without the destruction of the nation-state. And the nation-state can not be destroyed, unless one would destroy the culture.

So, the process which is going on today, is the process of destruction of cultures, such as the tribal cultures of Africa, tribal cultures of Latin America, tribal cultures of many of the other countries of the world. This is what is happening.

Now, therefore, in fact, anything which India, and other countries in part, can do, I feel will be only be possible, if we can protect that pluralistic culture of this country, which allowed the germination of all kinds of things which happened in India. So, under these circumstances, I feel the most important element today is, how to protect our culture.

Secondly, the most important thing is that: How to bring about that, during the periods of transition, which you have said that the financial system is breaking down: How do we see that, before the system really breaks down, there is something very positive visible, which can become acceptable to a large mass of the people around the world? Otherwise, attempts will be made, as from colonialism, you went to Bretton Woods; from Bretton Woods you moved to the next stage, to bring in disparity, having the different currencies; and now something else is being done. The same thing will happen again. We have to see that that doesn’t happen. This is the key in my view.

LaRouche: I’ll just say one thing quickly on this, on your remarks. Since you raised the question, we should have discussion about the Cato Institute [report] and others, which had been published subsequently, on the attempt to influence Clinton and his circles on India and other countries. I think it’s extremely important that that publication be widely circulated among relevant Indian circles, to know—and this should be circulated worldwide—to understand one of the problems. What you reported to me in this respect, explained something to me, which had mystified me recently, on an encounter I had on just this issue, and I couldn’t understand why the Clinton circles would be so enraged, and so upset, about this question. You explained it to me, by pointing to that Cato Institute, et al., business. And I think it’s extremely important that that be publicized widely, and that it be publicized widely among relevant Indian circles, so they know exactly what the problems were in the Clinton policy toward India and Asia, generally, and understand some of the problems which spill over, through State Department circles, in dealing with India now.

Kapur: The only problem there is, which my friend here said something about: The Cato report was on the front page of almost every newspaper in India, in small print. A number of things were said from their report. But only the print area. People largely, even highly sophisticated people, can not connect the entire Cato report, and the contents of the report, and the significance of the report, to the total picture as it is in Washington. So the issue is, of the understanding of the implications, not the publication of the report.

LaRouche: Yes, I know. We agree.

EIRNS/Ortrun Cramer

The LaRouches visit Qutab Minar in New Delhi, Nov. 30, 2001. This was the first monument to Muslim rule in India. The centerpiece of the complex is the minar, a tower with beautiful, intricate carvings of Koranic verses, which took several centuries to build, beginning in the 12th Century. It is an architectural/artistic “dialogue of cultures,” called the “Indo-Islamic style.”

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

We Must Eradicate Global Poverty

Shri Chandrajit Yadav: LaRouche, Mrs. LaRouche, your visit to India is a very welcome visit. I must introduce myself. I am a former Union minister and former Member of Parliament, as my friend K.R. Ganesh, sitting by my side. I think that you’re visiting India after 20 years? [LaRouche: Seventeen years.] Seventeen years. Even that is a very long period.

I wish you could visit more often, to this part of the world: not only India, Russia, Southeast Asia, China, because as you rightly said that, this part of the world will play a very important role in shaping the new, just economic order. And I think that one lesson which is good in itself of 11 September, although it was a very tragic event, but I think that the whole world must try to learn the lesson from that tragic event, why this thing had happened. Why terrorism was not taken note of earlier, and why all of a sudden, terrorism has become the main target for the international community.

I think that there are several injustices going on. As you said wisely, that economics must be for the poor. The mission of economics is not only to create wealth, and to create more wealth and go for greater development and create a different kind of monetary system. But its humanist mission should be: To, for the welfare of the human being, to create, to diminish hard labor, eliminate poverty on a very large scale, in the whole world today; and growing unemployment, at the same time growing disparities. And therefore, social tension is also increasing very much.

One objective of the present world system does not seem only to dominate—certain capitalists of the world want only to dominate the whole world—but also they are making the entire humanity as the victims of materialism. The one major problem in my opinion is, the growing sense of materialism, and also consumerism. Because today the whole effort of the capitalist world is, to create a system or a society of consumerism, make individuals and human beings totally materialistic, and as you very rightly said, that you have a sense of a spiritualism. But one target seems to be, destroy spiritualism! And that is another major danger. So, the entire developing countries are being subjected to a new kind of economic imperialism. As you made the very significant remark, that Africa has become a no-man’s-land. It’s a major continent! But now, the first target was Africa, to destroy that continent, nations totally subjugated, and dependent on others. And now they’re making a force, really, to make the entire developing countries as dependent on them.

Government of India Government of India

The Indian nation encompasses a great diversity of ethnic and religious groups, such as those voters shown here: a Muslim woman on the left, and a Hindu Brahmin on the right. India’s enemies seek to create fissures along ethnic and religious fault lines, to promote the geopolitical strategy of a clash of civilizations.

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

I very highly appreciate your concern for the developing countries, especially for Asia, and also for India. Otherwise, in 1981, you’d not have taken care to produce the “Forty-Year Plan For The Development Of India.” That shows your concern also. And your friendly feeling for Indian people, which I very much appreciate.

I will say that you seem to be speaking with a strong sense of conviction, that the present monetary system, international monetary system, is finished, has no future. But there has to be some kind of alternative system. I would like you to finally throw more light—that when this present international monetary system is finished, then what kind of alternative system will emerge? At the world level, as well at the regional levels? And especially for the developing countries? Because the basic problem today, are that two-thirds of the population lives in these countries, and they are not making progress, they do not seem to have any future. Even in our country—I would just like to bring to your notice—I’m sure that seeing your interest in the area, you must be doing so. But, just to remind you, that after 52 and 53 years of our independence, almost one-third of our population—and when I say one-third, it means almost 30 to 40 gross of people, 300 to 400 million people—it’s not a small population. They are still living below the poverty line, and that poverty line is an inhuman poverty line. Even safe drinking water is not available to them. Another one-third of our population, is living with very sub-standard living. Thus, two-thirds of India. It means 600 to 700 to 800 million people in India are living a really substandard life.

EIRNS/Ortrun Cramer

Former Union minister Chandrajit Yadav: “When this present international monetary system is finished, then what kind of alternative system will emerge?”

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

What future is for them, if we become only the victim of the present exploiting system? And as you very rightly said—I am very glad that you have a very original idea, that we aren’t speaking of making some reforms within this existing system—that won’t work. There has to be some alternate view—part, of development. There has to be some alternate view—part, of ideas, and thinking, and a vision! After all, human beings are not only just to live from one day to another day. We must build a prosperous, a cultured, thinking society.

So, I think that these ideas have to be discussed at length, as Professor Kaushik said: very unfortunately, because you, obviously, after a long time, to sum up your ideas through your magazines, are known to people, but you are known only to the intellectual people. You should be more known to the common people, more thinking people. And if you visit more, I’m sure that there will be people to organize the larger-scale discussion with you. You have some very original ideas, and those ideas have to be discussed.

So, I’m saying, that in India, we have, as I said, two-thirds of the population living a substandard life. We have in India, between the age group of 6 and 14—our children—60% are not going to school. And if they are going, then within two or three years there are large-scale dropouts.

Our women, 36% of our women, are illiterate. They have not been able to go to school, because of the poverty, because of the social system. We do not want that—I’m not using that word “Taliban,” people may misunderstand, and I don’t want to use that—but what unfortunately happened in Afghanistan the last few years, closing schools for girls, destroying schools, making them live a life of animals. So I’m saying that these are the problems, problems of Asia, problems of Africa, problems of even Latin America, and I say, in a sense, the problems of two-thirds of the people in the whole world.

So, I’m glad that you visited, and I’m glad for Mr. Maitra, who provided us some opportunity, informing us that you’re visiting Delhi, and therefore we were able to come and understand your ideas, your vision, and also have some kind of dialogue. I wish to I thank you again, and I wish you visit India soon again. Thank you.

LaRouche: Thank you very much.

Ecologism Means Genocide

Dr. Padma Seth: [member, National Women’s Commission] I have a little question. You have clubbed Malthusianism, globalism, ecologism. I’d like you to explain about the ecology part: Globalization we suffer, Malthusianism we—

LaRouche: The ecology idea was developed by the group of Bertrand Russell and H.G. Wells, and their associates, and was foisted upon the world under the infamous book, published in 1928 by Wells, called The Open Conspiracy. And you find the essentials of the program are there.

This idea, of course, came from the progenitor of H.G. Wells, Thomas Huxley, who created Wells out of mud. So, this comes from the ideology of the Haileybury school; this comes from Benthamism, and so forth. And they’re spread around the world with the idea that if you accept the idea that man should not alter nature—that there’s a balance in nature which is predetermined, and you must not alter it—that what you will do, by simply making that demand, you will ensure genocide.

Now, Wells made it clear, as did Russell, that genocide was desirable, and technological and scientific progress had to be stopped, in order to promote genocide, to keep the world’s population within dimensions which they found agreeable, and to keep people as stupid as possible, by denying them, by making them hate technology, making them hate science and technology. Which is what you get in most of these crazy terrorist movements which are created; they are generally anti-scientific, anti-humanistic movements.

This came into vogue, on a popular basis, with the Indo-China War period. It was established as international policy by the British government, by British intelligence, through people like Dr. Alexander King, and others. It was spread into the Soviet Union, through the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. It was an operation which was run by Cambridge University, the Cambridge systems analysis group. It was spread throughout the world. It was spread in India widely by the associates and followers, the networks, of Bertrand Russell, who—to me—presented this argument.

So, this is a form of insanity.

Archaeological debate is occurring in India over its ancient Vedic history and a maritime civilization which came to inhabit the ancient river systems to India’s west—the Indus and the (now buried) river valley called here Sarasvati. LaRouche discussed the crucial Indian scientific work of Panini and Tilak.

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

You know, the way to approach this problem is as I have done. And, on this account, the ideas of Vernadsky are extremely important. Vernadsky defined the biosphere in a rigorous way, from the standpoint of geology. Oh, by the way, I’ve seen the latest Current Science magazine, for example—had some interesting business on the question of geology, in this last week’s issue. It’s really quite fascinating, and important to consider. Particularly when it refers to the condition of parts of India. Fascinating.

In this point, the question of human existence, is, man has cognition. Not, man is an animal, but, man has cognition, has the same right and obligation to transform the biosphere, as life has the right to transform the abiotic domain. Man has the obligation to do that. It is man’s nature to do that. Man does that by fundamental scientific discovery, and applying those discoveries, to increase the potential population density, and power, of the individual members of society. And therefore, any intervention against that, is anti-spiritual; it’s a violation of the rights of nature of man.

But this is what’s being done. The biggest source, the biggest argument, for the destruction of civilization, which has occurred in the past 31 years, has been based on the spread of the doctrine of ecology. If we eliminated that doctrine of ecology, as taught by these circles—. It was spread already in the early 1940s, or mid-1940s, from the Bertrand Russell circles, such as the Unification of the Sciences Project in the United States and elsewhere; spread through Margaret Mead, the Wiener crowd, and the John von Neumann crowd—these kinds of ideas were spread. And they were spread around the world.

They were spread into Russia. They were one of the most crucial factors in bringing about the internal self-destruction of the Soviet Union. With the spread of the ideas of ecology, through the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis channel, which was actually a British intelligence channel, and created in parallel, because Moscow was suspicious about bringing the Club of Rome into Moscow directly, so the same group that created the Club of Rome—Dr. Alexander King, and so forth—created the IIASA, together with people like McGeorge Bundy in the United States, as a channel for corrupting the Soviet Union. And one of the most successful influences in causing the Soviet Union to destroy itself, was ecology.

From Audience: The Pugwash Conferences, also.

LaRouche: Right.

We Must Increase the Power of the Biosphere

Dr. Seth: May I have one more? Excuse me. My question was more on the environmental aspect. And soil erosion and similar problems; and congregation in the cities. That’s my problem. And environmental pollution. This also includes population . . . the growth and density of population. So I think the quality of the culture should also interest you, because it’s not merely nature, but human culture.

LaRouche: Well, human culture—. The point is, the job, is the question of national governmental and world policy. Our job is to improve the biosphere for man’s existence, not to destroy it. That’s why you have to have a scientific approach, you can’t have an arbitrary approach of any kind.

For example: We need to increase the power of the biosphere as a whole, which means you have to increase high-grade biomass.

For example, forestation in the Deccan: You need to change. You need to change the water transport systems, to transform deserts into places. You have to manage the oceans. You have to manage the land, for mankind. You have to take the same approach to the planet Earth that you would attempt to take, in Earth-forming the Moon . . . or Mars, for example. For example, if we’re going to put scientific stations on Mars—and we have reasons to do so—we’re going to have to create a synthetic environment, beneath the surface of Mars, and we’re going to have to know how to do it.

UN

“Our job,” said LaRouche, “is to improve the biosphere for man’s existence, not to destroy it. That’s why you have to have a scientific approach, you can’t have an arbitrary approach of any kind.” Here, scientists and engineers at India’s Institute for Petroleum Exploration.

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

When you put people in space, well, you’ve changed a lot of things about human life, as going into space. These are not the same conditions in which human life was designed on Earth. Therefore, you have to know how to deal with these policies.

So therefore, you have to have a science. That’s why I push this—I push this question. You must have a scientific approach to this question, and use Vernadsky, and his concept of biosphere and noösphere, and use that as science; and say, we must look at how we manage our planet, and beyond, from the standpoint of science. And therefore, national policy, and national law, must be based on science, not the kind of pseudo-science which present-day ecology represents.

The Coup d’État against the Bush Administration

Q: I would like you to explain your analysis of the Sept. 11 events.

LaRouche: The Sept. 11 events were an attempted military coup d’état inside the United States, against the Presidency of George Bush. There was earlier reference to this question about terrorism. We use the term “terrorism,” but I do not define terrorism as an independent category. That is a big mistake. It’s a mistake in discussion of the situation in Afghanistan now. That is not the issue.

We have things that are called terrorism, but what we have really is, under the conditions of nuclear supremacy, nuclear weapons supremacy, major powers resorted to use of what is called irregular warfare, as a substitute for regular warfare. See, from the period of the various things that developed in the 16th Century, around Leonard da Vinci, and Machiavelli, the concept of warfare, suited for modern civilization, was defined. And during the 18th Century—as a result of the American Revolution, as the result of the reforms particularly by Carnot in France and by Scharnhorst in Germany—you have reforms in military art, which gave to the modern regular army, and the idea of the rule of law.

The Treaty of Westphalia was a key part in European history, of defining a rule of law concerning warfare. And unfortunately, that’s been abandoned today. The reason we had that law, we realized the danger inhering in religious warfare, and ethnic warfare. That is, people must not kill one another because of ethnic issues. They must not kill one another over religious issues. This is the essence of the progress of modern European civilization, is presumably to recognize that.

So what we did, having reached, with World War II, the highest rate of development of modern warfare, we immediately retreated from modern warfare, to sub-modern warfare—a decadent form, which is called irregular warfare. Now, irregular warfare are means other than uniformed, acknowledged military means, to accomplish political aims, like those of warfare, within one’s own country, or in foreign countries.

For example, there is no such thing as international terrorism. International terrorism is only what we call irregular warfare, which is organized by governments. Now, I’ve done a number of studies of a number of terrorist organizations. None of them are independent. Independent terrorist organizations either do not exist, or they don’t survive very long. An independent terrorist organization goes out on the street, and it’s going to be wiped out very quickly, by any government. The only way in which a terrorist organization can flourish, under the pretext of being independent, is because some government, or similar authority which controls governments, is protecting it.

Now, in this case, you had the development of this in an extreme form, in the 1970s especially. It started in the 1960s, late 1960s, with the development of terrorism to promote a post-industrial society—that was the original purpose. That continued into the 1970s. In the 1970s, we had, with Kissinger and Brzezinski as National Security Advisers, a new form of—particularly after the SALT agreements of 1972—you had now the use of irregular warfare as a surrogate for warfare between the United States and the Soviet Union—an extension of what happened in Vietnam.

Every form of terrorism of any importance since that time, is that.

Let’s take the case here, of the Sept. 11 event. The problems in Afghanistan really started with Kissinger’s operation to overthrow the Shah of Iran, which is a British intelligence operation, planned by Bernard Lewis, who is the number-two of the British Arab Bureau. And all Kissinger’s policies against Iran, were planned by Bernard Lewis. All of the important policies on the “Arc of Crisis,” and “Clash of Civilizations,” were planned by Bernard Lewis, the policies of Brzezinski, then and now.

So, in the middle of the 1970s, Brzezinski and his friends went to the Islamic Jihad organization in Egypt, and began to recruit people from Islamic Jihad into this operation, which became known as the Afghansi. They went to a Wahhabi tendency in Saudi Arabia, and got money from some of these—you know, you have all these princes there, they pass out money. So they got some money from these various princes, to finance an army called Islamic Jihad, or became known as the Afghansis.

For example, you had the case of Goldsmith, Jimmy Goldsmith, who was a key operative in the Pakistan area, for British intelligence, in partnership with the United States in running the Afghanistan operations of the late 1970s. In 1982, the operation was taken over by George Bush, in partnership with Jimmy Goldsmith. So the warfare in Afghanistan, and terrorism in that area, was run—it was run through certain interests in Pakistan, which were bought. Most of this was done with weapons trafficking and drug trafficking, which financed it. So we had to create large armies of irregular forces, of volunteers, as a troop of mercenaries, just like the British East India Company did in India, in which the troops that were brought in, were not British regulars, they were not British forces, they were British East India Company private armies, and mercenary armies. So, mercenary armies were again on the scene, under various guises, conducting irregular warfare.

What is happening, for example, on the borders of Northern India now, in Nepal, and Sikkim, and so forth, the Naxalite operations, these are operations by powers. These are not independent movements. This is irregular warfare against India, on what is considered the most vulnerable part of India.

On Sept. 11, you had this faction inside the British, the U.S., and other interests—had been operating with these objectives. However, if you’re going to run a coup d’état, a modern coup d’état—. One must not believe the newspapers; one must understand how a military institution functions. If you’re going to run a military coup d’état, you don’t go out and recruit people to it. You don’t ask them to join the coup d’état. You get them involved, because of their involvement in other things you’re doing. That’s the way the Kennedy assassination was set up. People who were involved in the Kennedy assassination were recruited around a screen of organizing an invasion of Cuba. That’s how the Kennedy assassination was set up. The people who were in the Kennedy assassination, the masses of them who helped set it up, all thought they were going for an invasion of Cuba. And a continuation of the Lansdale attack plan for the war against Cuba. A U.S. military attack on Cuba.

So, the way it works is, you have a tight circle of top-ranking people on the inside of the military. These people on the inside orchestrate the mobilization of forces for undisclosed, or misdisclosed, purposes. They then deploy these elements, like military units, to their assigned functions. And if they survive, it’s after the accident has occurred, that they know what they did. And even then they don’t know what they did.

That’s how you do a military coup.

The way we define the Sept. 11 events is very serious, very simple. Every government has security arrangements—particularly every major power—which are intended to apply to the potentiality that a section of its own military, or police, might be corrupted, and therefore, might be used to arrange a coup d’état. That is, any sensible government. Some of you have been near the PM [Prime Minister] position, you know this stuff; that you have to anticipate the danger of a coup d’état. This has happened a number of times in India. So therefore, you have precautions, security precautions, in the military and in the police forces, which are intended to detect, and prevent, the success of any enterprise of that sort.

In the United States, as a nuclear power, we have very special kinds of protection arrangements, detection arrangements, intervention arrangements, stay-back, sleep arrangements, deep-penetration of agents, and all kinds of things, to be on the inside of whatever might be planned. The only way you could run something like what happened on Sept. 11: You had to be on the inside, and you had to have control over shutting off certain security arrangements. Which is why you ask yourself: Why, after the first plane went up, and then the second soon afterward, and then the Pentagon attack, why were there no F-14s stationed—as they’re supposed to be—waiting for the order to shoot down the plane which is on the course of doing that? How were these things done? Some Arab pilot trained in some flying school is going to fly a modern jet, at speeds of up to 500 kilometers per hour, do a J-turn, and go into an object at the 86th story of a 110-story building, which looks almost like a pebble, or a golf ball, to a pilot approaching at that speed, when he makes that decision? No, you don’t do that.

Nor is this done by some Arab coming in and taking over the pilot’s seat. Maybe somebody took over the pilot’s seat, but it wasn’t some Arab who took over the pilot seat; it was a highly trained pilot, who knew exactly what he was going to do, and was trained for it many times before. It was done from inside the U.S. military.

Now, then you look at it afterward.

You say, why did it happen? Well, when this thing happens, you know what was done. For example, if you get a tiger that goes into a village, and kills people, you know it was a tiger. You then have to find out which was the tiger, and you go out and find it. But you know a tiger did it. You don’t wait until you get the name, rank, and serial number of that tiger, before saying a tiger killed these villagers.

The same thing with the cobra. You don’t know which cobra did it, if he got away, but some cobra did it.

So, the same thing. We don’t know to this day, which of these uglies did it. But we know why it was done. . . .

From Audience: Why?

LaRouche: It was done for the obvious reason: clash of civilizations. Now, you look at the subsequent events. If you had any doubt about what the purpose was, the subsequent events tell you. You have a major fight, factional fight, within the U.S. government, within the Bush Administration, in which the President and Powell and others, like General Zinni, are out to prevent a continuation of the Israeli slaughter against the Palestinians. To bring about an enforced peace, aimed at an independent Palestinian state. That’s the policy of the President of the United States. That was the policy of the President of the United States before Sept. 11. It’s the policy of the President after Sept. 11.

Now, he’s a poor President, but nonetheless that’s his policy, and that’s his intention. He has many people in his government who are on the opposite side. Well, we know who they are. You can see it in India, on CNN, if you get the CNN broadcast. You can see it on the Murdoch chain. You can see it from the Washington Post. You can see it in other press which express a different view. There’s a major fight inside the United States of: “Should we have a clash of civilizations war?” Clash of civilizations war means, that Sharon does what he tried to do once, and will do again, and the Israeli Defense Forces will do it: is to climb up, tear down al-Haram al-Sharif, and put the Third Temple of Israel on top, in place of the mosque. You do that at the same time you’re killing Arabs and Islamic people all over the world, what have you got? You have incited a worldwide religious war.

Which is what their purpose is. Brzezinski has said so. Kissinger has said so. So what you have, is the devolution of the development of irregular warfare, in the post-1972 period, in which military commands are polluted by the use of mercenary tactics, but under regular military command, to conduct surrogate wars. Such as those you’re seeing in Nepal, Sikkim, and right in India today, which is the problem here.

So that the problem is, therefore, you have an inadequate President, who’s trying to defend the world and his government, against the destruction of civilization, by a generalized religious war, and once you start an Islamic religious war, in and outside Islam, you’re not going to stop it that easily. All the ethnic pots will boil.

And that’s the intention, to destroy civilization. That’s coming from London; it’s coming from people inside the United States—the supporters of Al Gore, the supporters of the Attorney General of the United States, and others, and crazy military people. It’s coming from inside Britain, similar faction there. And it’s coming from those inside the United States, and British, who control the IDF command—which, if you want to talk about modern Nazis, the IDF command is your modern Nazis. . . .

So, that’s the essence of the matter. And it should be a lesson to us all, as to the nature of the world in which we’re living.

EIRNS/Ortrun Cramer

Prof. Arjun Sengupta: “What is important, is not globalization, but our failure to channel, control, regulate, globalization.”

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

What Kind of New World Economic Order?

Prof. Arjun Sengupta: [School of Economics, Jawaharlal Nehru University; former economic adviser to Prime Minister Indira Gandhi; former adviser to International Monetary Fund Managing Director Michel Camdessus] I wanted to intervene for a very simple reason. After I heard your speech at Jawaharlal Nehru University, you probably remember, you gave me a book to read. This is your book on recovery [The Road To Recovery]. And having read that, I was quite excited, and I thought that probably this would be a good way of starting a major movement around the world, where every country, or at least leaders of every country which are thinking in terms of a new vision, could unite.

Now, I wanted to explain what I understood from your book, and your discussion, and whether that is something which you’d like to own, and then we can all join.

Frankly, in that kind of a vision, your very interesting discussions about the Sept. 11 events, and the conspiracy and all that, are interesting. They can be challenged. As you know, you are a good academic, so you know that any of these statements requires empirical justification. They can take us to a different kind of a debate. But they are not germane to the main point, or the main theoretical framework, that you are building up. And that is why I would concentrate on that particular theoretical framework that you are building up.

It is also not necessary for you to attack consumerism. My esteemed friend, Mr. Chandrajit Yadav, talked about it. People may or may not like consumerism, but it is not necessary for you to attack that. In fact, all of us who are old, say that we are against consumerism, but the younger people don’t, and you have to carry the younger people. So I would say that that is not germane to our discussion either.

I think attacking globalization is also not germane. What is important is, and I think in your book you put it very well, it is not globalization, but our failure to channel, control, regulate, globalization. Like a market economy. A market economy can exist, and can do quite a lot of good things to many people, and in terms of efficiency, technology; but it requires guidance. It requires governance. I want to put it in this way, because it might give you some kind of popular support if you attack globalization, but this would deflect your main line of your thesis, which is not attacking globalization as such; but ways to regulate globalization.

And similarly, I think that Mr. Kapur has raised a very major point about cultural identity. In your framework, national states will exist, and should exist, as cultural units. But will not exist as isolated economic units, or isolated political power centers. In fact, the most important message that you give, is that in this new world, the old power-balance game is no longer going to work. So nation-states, focal points, or power centers, will no longer exist.

Similarly, nation-states as economic entities going against each other, will not be able to function. The only way nation-states can exist is as the cultural units, because cultural identities remain; and they remain because people like to share their identity.

If this is the case, as I understand, you have three elements in your whole structure. You would like to build up an infrastructural system, which will enable private entrepreneurs and private individuals to function, to have innovative activities; because you believe entrepreneurs are still the basis of technological progress. And they should be able to function. But there is a function of an enabling environment of which infrastructure is very important, which can not be built up by private market interests; which will require an international understanding of providing resources, at a cheap cost—2% or so—and it is because the [desired private] rate of return is much higher than that, so we can not marketize that rate of return.

So, your first point is to build up that global infrastructure. In fact, I don’t think it is even necessary for you to limit yourself to Eurasia. This can be done for the world order.

And if that is done, then you allow the private entrepreneurs to function, compete with each other, be vectors of technological progress, use this infrastructure.

And thirdly, social arrangements based on equity and democracy.

These are the main points—and empowerment, which follows from there.

And talking about the new international system—but these three would be the basic elements—in which the United States itself should be very much interested. Because as I mentioned, the United States could now cease to be a military-industrial complex, and move toward helping build up that infrastructure system all over the world. It will give it kind of a push. It will also be a system in which the Russians, the Indians, the Chinese, all of them would be interested, because they could benefit from that.

Now, I am putting it in this way—if my understanding is correct—then you probably could unleash a new movement that all of us could join. It is not a question of just populist pressures here and there. The people want to be happy; they want to be rich; they want to have more goods, more opportunities, more freedoms. Your system will provide that, and will move to a different international order, which would be a humane world order, based on a universal fulfillment of all human rights—this is also another point which comes out from your presentation.

Thank you very much.

UN

Addressing the need for a protectionist policy, LaRouche underlines, “You must have a wages policy which protects the wage-income of the worker in the household. You must think of wages not in terms of individual workers; you must think of wages in terms of household income, as units. And that’s an area of protectionism which must intervene in the entrepreneurial area; as well as in other areas.” Here, a worker assembles electronic equipment for the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre in Trombay, India.

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

Protectionism and Wages

LaRouche: I say, generally, yes, I’m in concurrence with the general thrust of your remarks, on all points.

The entrepreneurial thing contains one little problematic feature: The importance of protectionism. For example: the importance of protectionism in wages. You must have a wages policy which protects the wage-income of the worker in the household. You must think of wages not in terms of individual workers; you must think of wages in terms of household income, as units. And that’s an area of protectionism which must intervene in the entrepreneurial area; as well as in other areas.

You must also protect the capital investment of the entrepreneur, by regulating prices at such a level—you might call it fair prices, as opposed to fixed prices, but fair prices—which guarantee the entrepreneur the right to a price, and a protected price, in the market, which is equitable for his long-term investment and so forth, and recovery on that. So therefore, you are fostering the entrepreneurial; you are not actually an entrepreneur, but you’re doing for the individual entrepreneur what he can not do for himself. It’s to create the environment in which he can function.

Similarly with other things among nations. Protectionism: You must provide protectionism for those things which are important, but for which they can not protect themselves. Such as international trade, and so forth. And once you include that, then I would say, “Fine, yes.”

Professor Sengupta: This is the main area where we can have a long debate. Your wages protection—if, by protectionism, you mean sacrifices protection—this wages protectionism is not feasible to maintain, except for what is for the future. Only if there is productivity backing higher wages—

LaRouche: Exactly.

UN

In India the most backward agriculture and use of resources—due to lack of infrastructural investment and universal education—co-exists with the most advanced plant-genetic research, as in the study of the effects of nuclear radiation on plant physiology at India’s Agricultural Research Institute.

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

Professor Sengupta: Now, your capital protection is very well-taken, provided we have no alternative way of subsidizing capital; and this is what you were saying, that you are trying to provide it in terms of prices; the alternative may be subsidizing—

LaRouche: The key thing is the family unit, and the education of the member of the household.

Q: That is the most important. That is reflected in your basic human rights that you speak of—

LaRouche: Exactly.

We Must Free States of Oligarchism

Q: I hope you are going to be the well-informed President of America—about India; because one of your Presidents did not know about the Indian Prime Minister. [Laughter.] Senior Bush, not Junior Bush. Junior Bush knows Vajpayee very well.

What I am going to ask you—because in the new economic world order, in the past years, sir, we had lots of contradictions. The contradiction is Israel. The contradiction is Palestine. And the contradiction is India and Pakistan itself; the two countries that nuclearized. And our past experience with America is very bad.

And so my point is, America knows how to create things, but doesn’t know how to use them. They created Osama bin Laden; but then they didn’t really rehabilitate Osama bin Laden. And the outcome was the 11th September. Similarly, the U.S. destroyed—helped in collapsing—the Soviet Union. And what happened? The scientists left the Soviet Union, and they settled in different countries; and they produced anthrax.

So, are you going to take care of all these things in the new economic order? Please tell me, because we are also fighting with terrorism, very heavily, like you are right now fighting. For you, it’s a new experience; for us, it’s long term. Thank you.

LaRouche: First of all, Osama bin Laden was, in a sense, an Anglo-American creation, not an American creation. You have to say “Anglo-American,” or you miss the target. He was essentially a unit deployed by Anglo-American interests to subvert Central Asia and Russia; to spread something else in the Sufi areas, like Afghanistan and Chechnya, which no Sufi would tolerate—

Q: I need one intervention. I’m quoting you only. You said that all the militant groups need state protection, or protection from similar institutions. Osama bin Laden studied in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the best institute of America. And secondly, he was protected—his ideas and everything were protected, when the Cold War was going on.

LaRouche: Well, it was the British government and the United States government. And he was nothing but a drunk and a woman-chaser in his youth, who later became a different kind of degenerate—

Q: [From audience]: And he did not study at MIT.

LaRouche: The problem is the control of states by a phenomenon called oligarchism, the Venetian tradition. And to the extent that certain financier interests are able to subvert governments, control governments, and use the instruments of governments to their advantage, these kinds of problems arise.

What we have to do, essentially, is to have an economic system which does not allow the encroachment of oligarchism of that type, into our systems. If you set up the right kind of economic system, these things can not survive. These things are intended to promote that [oligarchical] kind of economic system. Therefore, if we tear down that kind of economic system, it will have no power base on which to operate.

The Issue of Cultural Identity

Professor Kaushik: Thank you. Now, I think, Mrs. LaRouche, you may have the floor.

Helga LaRouche: I just wanted to address what several people mentioned: this question of cultural identity as being crucial.

I disagree a little bit with what you [Professor Sengupta] said—that one should not attack consumerism and materialism. I think one has to make, especially, young people conscious about it, because if you look—I did—at the TV here, at some of the “Bollywood” [Calcutta’s film industry] productions, you have almost an Indian version of Britney Spears. And the problem is, that you have a lot of young people, of 10, 12, 15 years old, who all try to imitate these pop videos. And they walk around like this. . . . And in a certain sense, this is mental slavery. Because the stupidity and the banality of this is so big, it stupefies people and makes them, again, a new version of game for the international oligarchy.

Now, we have right now the danger of a real clash of civilizations. You have the danger, that if this present situation in Afghanistan, and everything that hangs around it, is not stopped—if, for example, the hawk faction in the United States and Great Britain is victorious, and they are able to spread the war beyond Afghanistan, maybe to Iraq; or, who knows, Iran was mentioned, Somalia—then the danger could be of a real war of civilizations; of Christianity against Islam, against Hinduism, against Confucianism. And you can really see all of these cultures clashing in a perpetual war.

Now I believe that Leibniz was right, that we indeed, do live in the best of all possible worlds; that in front of a very big danger, something is called forward in people, to outdo a big evil with something even more good. I think this is part of human nature, that if challenged in this way, you can produce something beyond what is presently the threat.

In that sense, I think that the Renaissance of each culture—of Indian culture; of European culture, which right now is almost lost among many people, especially the young, they don’t know anything about it any more—I think that if we look at it this way, that each culture is now called upon to revive its best traditions; the best traditions and not the bad traditions, you can have a dialogue among these cultures, where each culture focusses on the best aspects of the other one. And to do that, obviously, you have to have a concept of your own culture first, because, otherwise, you have no basis from which to talk.

India’s youth, like youth the world over, are being bombarded with images of sensuality and materialism. Here, a website promotes the“styles”of Calcutta’s film industry, known as “Bollywood.”

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

Now, Nicolaus of Cusa, who is one of my favorite philosophers from the 15th Century, had the idea that the only reason different cultures can even talk to each other, and understand each other, is because each one produces scientists, wise men—and women, for that matter—poets, composers, people who have a universal language with which they can communicate. Therefore, I think if you start to look: What are the universal principles in each culture—in Indian culture, how is this reflected? in Confucianism, in Islam, in other cultures: That way we can start the dialogue. And I think that out of a terrible crisis and danger to mankind right now, if we start to approach it this way, we will overcome what I call the childhood of mankind, which is oligarchism. Because I don’t think oligarchism is something that will be with us forever. And once we start to do that, and start to know the other culture, from the standpoint of knowing our own culture and cherishing what it was contributing to universal progress, I believe that people will eventually—when all children will have the chance to learn about the other cultures in this way—we will start to love them. Because once you start to recognize the beauty of all of these different cultures in the world, it will be like the crown of pearls; where you will be strengthened in what you do, in what your identity is, but you will also be enriched by the contributions of the others.

And since we are for the first time sitting in one boat—I mean, we have reached a point in history where either we all make it, or none of us will make it—then I believe, that through such an exchange of different cultures, we will be able to make a new Renaissance like nothing in the world before.

So I’m actually optimistic that we can turn this crisis into something brilliantly new.

Professor Kaushik: Thank you. Well, I think we have had a very fruitful brainstorming session, for which our thanks go to the couple here, LaRouche and Mrs. LaRouche, and to all the participants who made illuminating observations. So far as I am concerned; well, I am an incorrigible Marxist-Leninist adherent of Mr. LaRouche. [Laughter.] I did my post-graduate degree at Lucknow University.

For me, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, since 1991, my contacts with Mr. LaRouche have been like a refresher course in Renaissance, in European history; European history from a different perspective. And I must say, with due deference to what he believes in and what he says, that I find a lot of common ground between Marxism-Leninism creatively interpreted—creatively, not in the nomenklatura way—and, at least in the present situation, what he has been saying. I want to tell him that had Lenin been alive, he would have come out with the same conclusion, after the analysis of rentier-speculative capitalism. Well, what else do we call it?

I know your Alexander Hamilton, and Benjamin Franklin, and Roosevelt, and Friedrich List—but then in the reality, we wind up with rentier-financial capitalism. It must not be called anything else but capitalism.

But let us not go and fight about it. I thank my guru, profusely, and I thank you all for your participation. We look forward . . . [applause]. So please, come again.