Executive Intelligence Review, Volume 46, Number 8, March 1, 2019

- Cover

- Masthead

- EDITORIAL Let’s Realize the Dream of All Mankind! by Helga Zepp-LaRouche

- Lyndon LaRouche’s Present and Future Power by Dennis Speed

- PDF edition Table of Contents — Volume 46, Number 8, March 1, 2019

- I. Feb. 16, 2019: So We Begin Anew

- Schiller Institute Conference Program February 16, 2019 · Morristown, NJ Let Us Create a New, More Human Epoch for Mankind

- PANEL I: Let Us Create a New, More Human Epoch for Mankind

- JACQUES CHEMINADE The Coming World of Lyndon LaRouche

- JOHN GONG Chinese Investment and American Infrastructure Under the New Sino-U.S. Relations

- AMBASSADOR VASSILY A. NEBENZIA Prospects for East-West Collaboration: The Russian Federation’s View

- WILLIAM BINNEY There Is No Such Thing as Artificial Intelligence

- JASON ROSS The Urgent Need for a New Paradigm in Africa

- DENNIS SMALL Justice for the World: Why Donald Trump Must Exonerate Lyndon LaRouche Now

- From the Q&A Session of Panel I

- II. Justice for the Future

- OBITUARY Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. (1922–2019)

- Messages of Condolence On the Passing of Lyndon LaRouche

- PETITION We Call Upon President Trump To Exonerate LaRouche!

- III. What Comes Next?

- END THE WALL STREET NIGHTMARE: What If Wall Street Had Died Now? by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. (August 31, 2013)

Courage Will Change the Future

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

Let’s Realize the Dream of All Mankind!

by Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Feb. 23—We are witnessing right now an epochal battle for the true identity of mankind: Are human beings, as the proponents of the New Green Deal suggest, parasites that put a strain on nature, and whose number must, therefore, be kept as low as possible? Or is the human species the only creative one known in the universe so far, a species with a limitless capacity for self-perfection both of its mind and the beauty of its character, with infinite capabilities to discover new principles of our physical universe?

This is not an esoteric question; it is the central axiomatic controversy underlying the present strategic battle between the collapsing old paradigm of the neoliberal system and of geopolitical confrontation, and the emerging new paradigm of an economic model devoted to the common good of all people of this world, living in a harmonious relation of the development of all.

The old paradigm is the British Empire paradigm of voracious greed and of oligarchical control of the world. It expresses itself in the fact that fewer and fewer people own the wealth of the world—a 2018 report found that just 26 individuals possess half the wealth of the entire human population—at the expense of the poor becoming poorer and more numerous. The hardships this paradigm causes for the ordinary man, woman, and child, are the reasons for the Brexit vote in 2016, for President Trump’s election by what Hillary Clinton cynically called the “deplorables,” for the election victory of the present Italian government, and for the protest of the “Yellow Vests” in France, a protest which is spreading to other European countries.

A New Paradigm in the United States

President Trump promised not only to defend the living standard of the population, by recreating productive jobs for everyone, but also to end the permanent foreign wars and to set U.S. relations with Russia and China on a positive basis. But, so far, the British-designed coup attempt pushed by the Democrats and by neocons in the Republican Party to prevent Trump from carrying out his intention continues, attempting to force a continued confrontation with Russia and China, and even to draw Trump himself into a new quagmire of foreign interventionist wars in Venezuela.

Concerning Russia, in respect to the withdrawal from the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, President Trump may have one intention—possibly replacing the INF with a new agreement—but the Russians are reacting to the reality of the hawkish tones coming from other members of the administration, such as John Bolton, Michael Pompeo, Dan Coats and others, as well as the British “minister of war,” Gavin Williamson, who threatens to use “hard power” and who claims that the “boundaries between peace and war are becoming blurred.”

In response to this strategic environment, President Vladimir Putin declared, in his annual address to the Federal Assembly, that in the wake of the U.S. withdrawal from the INF treaty, Russia does not intend to deploy intermediate-range missiles in Europe, but that if the U.S. does, “It will dramatically exacerbate the international security situation, and create a serious threat to Russia, because some of these missiles can reach Moscow in just 10-12 minutes. . . . Russia will be forced to create and deploy weapons that can be used not only in the areas we are directly threatened from, but also in areas that contain decision-making centers for the missile systems threatening us.”

Putin stressed, that Russia does not seek confrontation, but that it is enhancing its defense capabilities in order to make sure that “nobody would even consider pressuring us, or launching an aggression against us.” In other words: if this spiral of a new arms race and possible confrontation goes out of control, Europe would not be the only nuclear rubble field. Russian Defense Minister, Sergey Shoigu, commented on Putin’s speech, noting that Russia’s new weapon systems, such as the hypersonic glider “Avangard” that can travel at speeds beyond Mach 20, are a hundred times less costly than the American missile defense system that can only reach a speed of Mach 5, and which, according to experts, is therefore obsolete.

Defeat Attempted Coup Against Trump

So it is high time to stop the coup against President Trump, especially in light of the fact that not only has the Senate confirmed that there was not one shred of evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia, but also that members of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) have produced evidence that the so-called “Russian Hack” was actually an inside job. The VIPS have produced the technical evidence that the emails of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) were downloaded, not hacked.

What we now see unfolding in the Russiagate coup is what military analyst Pat Lang, on his blog site, Sic Semper Tyrannis, correctly calls a “seditious conspiracy,” an effort to “overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States.” The perpetrators of this conspiracy must be brought to justice, and all the documents concerning the role of the infamous Christopher Steele dossier and the role of British intelligence in collusion with forces inside the U.S. must be made public.

President Trump has waged a tremendously courageous fight under these conditions, but he now needs the support of every patriotic American, to free him from the chains of this “seditious conspiracy” of the so-called “Russiagate,” whose entire aim was from the beginning to prevent him from improving relations with Russia, and by implication, with China.

The fake media have hidden from the American population the fact that a new paradigm has been developing with a speed and a depth which most people— having been subjected to a wartime-like propaganda campaign against China—have absolutely no inkling of. President Xi Jinping, whom Trump continues to call his “very good friend,” has initiated with his Belt and Road Initiative a completely new system of international relations, of countries working together on a win-win basis for the common good of all.

The media try to convince people that China is stealing U.S. technology. But it was China that was the first nation to land successfully on the far side of the Moon, and which even got a cotton plant to sprout and grow there! That means China is the first country ever, that has generated life on an extraterrestrial body! That is a new chapter in the history of mankind!

Reaching the Stars, Together

On December 11, 2017, Trump issued his Space Policy Directive 1 that calls for the United States to “lead the return of humans to the Moon for long-term exploration and utilization, followed by human missions to Mars and other destinations.”

Immediately following China’s successful landing of the Chang’e-4 on the far side of the Moon, the Chinese National Space Administration (CNSA) said that China is willing to work with the international community, and especially the United States, to push forward the frontiers of space exploration! At a recent meeting at the Great Hall of the People, Xi Jinping thanked the 400 scientists and engineers who worked on the Chang’e-4 mission, telling them that space exploration is endless, that all great undertakings start with a dream, that dreams are the source of energy.

So the United States is truly at a crossroads: The road of confrontation with Russia and China could lead very quickly to the annihilation of humankind. That danger is very real. On the other side, the new paradigm of all nations uniting in the pursuit of the common aims of mankind is developing very fast. Joint space exploration is, perhaps, the most beautiful and lofty of all the domains, where mankind can, and will, work together for a common future.

The Hubble Space Telescope has found evidence that our universe consists of at least two trillion galaxies! Wow! This means that the people promoting the Green New Deal (essentially, Wall Street) are not only greedy, but also completely off their rocker! Because we are not living in a closed system of the planet Earth, but we are an integral part of this vast universe! To venture into that great beyond, requires nuclear fusion rockets in space, and an Earth civilization of development, science, and physical productivity, not green-energy poverty. As Xi Jinping said to the scientists and engineers of the recent lunar mission: “Exploring the vast universe is the common dream of all of mankind!”

Let’s realize that beautiful dream!

Lyndon LaRouche’s

Present and Future Power

by Dennis Speed

Feb. 25—“The everlasting universe of things flows though the mind,” Percy Shelley tells us. The mind’s infinite capacity to know is necessarily larger than the infinite objects of knowledge to be known, or else they could not even be conceived. “A container is always larger than the things that it contains,” says St. Augustine. Therefore, the mind, for example, is larger than Shelley’s everlasting universe of things. On this basis, Augustine argued that the mind must be immortal, or as he states, “the mind is immortal, and can never be killed.”

Lyndon LaRouche is such a mind. As of his physical passing away on Lincoln’s birthday, February 12, the life that was Lyndon LaRouche is now a subject in and for itself. As economist, as statesman, as thinker, his role will be increasingly powerfully manifest in the future, which is his present. That is a forecast to now be employed, not merely “a consummation devoutly to be wished.”

Lyndon LaRouche is the originator of the idea of potential relative population density, as a physical economic principle. This idea locates the relationship between the creative discovery by an individual of a principle of physical change; the demonstration of that physical principle to others through a unique, repeatable experiment; the universal replication of the experimentally proven principle by the manufacturing of tools; and the application—through changes in manufacturing techniques—of this new “machine tool” principle to improvement of the conditions of production, life, and knowledge, of the society as a whole. The result, and purpose of this, is an increase in the capacity for creative discovery, not only of the original creator, but all members of society touched by that creation. This increases the creative potential of the society in ways that cannot be enumerated or calculated mathematically, but can be metaphorically represented as an increase, not merely in the magnitude, but in the power of that society to transform itself at will. The society has gained a new characteristic; it becomes a society of a new type.

It was this principle—of the application of creative thought to the productive process—that Alexander Hamilton referred to as “artificial labor.” This is the true basis for freedom and independence. This was the underlying “revolutionary characteristic” of Benjamin Franklin’s personality, seen both in his scientific discoveries and in his development of the networks that would create not only the American Revolution, but the American republic. (It was why Franklin’s 1729 essay on population would gain the undying enmity of the British Empire, leading Parson Thomas Malthus to plagiarize the Venetian cleric Gianmaria Ortes and “produce” his abortion called An Essay on the Principle of Population.)

It is the celebration of the capacity to increase this creative power of the human mind which is the subject of Classical composition in general, and Classical musical composition in particular. In his 1989 article, “Beethoven as a Physical Scientist,” LaRouche states:

My most important discoveries, in every field which I have contributed, are based upon my successful refutation of the famous Kantian paradox reasserted in Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Judgment. Kant asserted two things of relevance here.

First, he insisted that although creative processes responsible for valid fundamental scientific discoveries exist, these processes themselves are beyond all possible human understanding. That I proved to be false, and from that proof developed an approach to intelligible representation of those creative processes, and hence the implicit measurement of technological progress as such.

Second, on the basis of the first assumption, Kant argued that there were no intelligible criteria of truth or beauty in aesthetics. The toleration which has been gained so generally by all modern irrationalism in matters of art, has depended upon German and other acceptance of this thesis on aesthetics advanced by Kant and Friedrich Karl Savigny later.

They Are the Future

The purpose of the Schiller Institute’s February 16-17 conference, given the news of February 12, became to immediately acquaint people with the philosophical outlook associated with Lyndon LaRouche as that is best identified with LaRouche’s International Caucus of Labor Committees. The “Labor Committees,” created by LaRouche in the 1960s, and defined only as a system of conferences, espouses a method of organizing—not a structure, or procedure, but a method—that proposes, debates and then validates by testing, all ideas that purport to be identical to, or congruent with, the mission of increasing the potential relative population density of the planet as a whole, in accordance with LaRouche’s discovery. We here supply the record of the conference in its near-entirety.

Happy is the man who, in the pursuit of wisdom, discovers himself. Happier still, is the man who, in teaching the path to wisdom, discovers others who have perhaps not yet discovered themselves. Happiest of all, is the man who, in living wisdom, will discover those he will never meet, but who will think of him as their teacher, brother and friend. They are the future for whom the life of Lyndon LaRouche is written.

EIR will not be producing an issue dated December 28, 2018. The subsequent issue will bedated January 4, 2019. All subscriptions are not by calendar date, but by number of issues.

EIR Contents

www.larouchepub.com — Volume 46, Number 8, March 1, 2019

Cover This Week

Wikipedia

Rembrandt van Rijn, self portrait, 1659.

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

COURAGE WILL CHANGE THE FUTURE

2 EDITORIAL

Let’s Realize the Dream of All Mankind!

by Helga Zepp-LaRouche

4 Lyndon LaRouche’s Present and Future Power

by Dennis Speed

I. FEB. 16, 2019: SO WE BEGIN ANEW

7 CONFERENCE PROGRAM

SCHILLER INSTITUTE CONFERENCE

Morristown, New Jersey, February 16, 2019

PANEL I.

Let Us Create A New, More Human Epoch For Mankind

9 A Talent Well Spent

by Dennis Speed

14 KEYNOTE

The Coming World of Lyndon LaRouche

by Jacques Cheminade

21 Chinese Investment and American Infrastructure Under the New Sino-U.S. Relations

by John Gong

27 Prospects for East-West Collaboration: the Russian Federation’s View

by H.E. Ambassador Vassily A. Nebenzia (presented by Counsellor Theodore Strzhizhovskiy)

28 Artificial Intelligence Is Not Artificial

by William Binney

34 The Urgent Need for a New Paradigm in Africa

by Jason Ross

39 Justice for the World: Why Donald Trump Must Exonerate Lyndon LaRouche Now

by Dennis Small

41 Discussion Session

II. JUSTICE FOR THE FUTURE

48 OBITUARY

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., 1922–2019

54 Condolences

63 PETITION

We Call Upon President Trump to Exonerate LaRouche!

III. WHAT COMES NEXT?

65 End the Wall Street Nightmare

What if Wall Street Had Died Now?

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

Aug. 31, 2013

NOTICE TO READERS

We will publish panels II and III of the Schiller Institute Conference in our next issue, dated March 8.

I. Feb. 16, 2019: So We Begin Anew

Schiller Institute Conference

February 16, 2019 · Morristown, NJ

Let Us Create a New,

More Human Epoch for Mankind

EIRNS/Stuart Lewis

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

Panel I:

Let Us Create a New, More Human Epoch for Mankind

9:00 am – 1:00 pm

Dennis Speed, “Lyndon LaRouche Speaks: A Talent Well Spent”

Jacques Cheminade, President of Solidarité & Progrès

Keynote, “The Coming World of Lyndon LaRouche”

John Gong, Professor of Economics at the University of International Business and Economics, Beijing

“Chinese Investment and American Infrastructure under the New Sino-U.S. Relations”

H.E. Ambassador Vassily A. Nebenzia, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of The Russian Federation to the United Nations, presented by Counsellor Theodore Strzhizhovskiy, Mission of the Russian Federation to the UN

“Prospects for East-West Collaboration: The Russian Federation’s View”

William Binney, Former Technical Director, National Security Agency (NSA), U.S.A.

“Artificial Intelligence is not Artificial”

Jason Ross, Co-author of the Schiller Institute’s “Extending the New Silk Road to West Asia and Africa”

“The Urgent Need for a New Paradigm in Africa”

Dennis Small, Executive Intelligence Review Ibero-America Editor

“Justice for the World: Why Donald Trump Must Exonerate Lyndon LaRouche Now”

EIRNS/Stuart Lewis

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

Q&A Session

2:30 – 5:30 pm

Panel II:

The Aesthetic Education of Man for the Beauty of the Mind and the Soul

Moderator: Dennis Speed

Schiller Institute combined chorus:

Benjamin Lylloff, arr: “Mo Li Hua” (“Jasmine Flower”)

Benjamin Lylloff, director

H.T. Burleigh, arr: “Deep River” and

William L. Dawson, arr: “Ev’ry Time I Feel the Spirit”

Diane Sare, director

Megan Beets, LaRouche PAC Scientific Research Team

“Artistic and Moral Beauty”

Bruce Director, Secretary-Treasurer, U.S. Schiller Institute

“On LaRouche’s Concept of the Significance of Art for Science and Science for Art”

Diane Sare, Managing Director of the Schiller Institute NYC Chorus

“The Choral Principle”

Johannes Brahms: “Dem dunkeln Schoß der Heil’gen Erde”

(text from Schiller’s “Song of the Bell”)

Schiller Institute Chorus

John Sigerson, director

Johann Sebastian Bach: Brandenburg Concerto No. 5 in D Major, BWV 1050

I. Allegro

Schiller Institute Orchestra

John Sigerson, director

Soloists: Gregor Kitzis, violin

Laura Thompson, flute

My-Hoa Steger, piano

Ludwig van Beethoven: Choral Fantasia, Op. 80

Schiller Institute Orchestra, Chorus, and Soloists

John Sigerson, director

My-Hoa Steger, piano

Q&A Session

7:00 – 10:00 pm

Panel III:

The Frontiers of Science

Moderator: Jason Ross

Musical offering

Yuting Zhou, piano

Johannes Brahms: Rhapsody, Op. 79, No. 1 in B minor

Kesha Rogers, LaRouche PAC Policy Committee, former candidate for U.S. Congress

“The Frontier of Space: Fulfilling Mankind’s Destiny as Man in the Universe”

Thomas Wysmuller, Founding member of NASA retirees’ The Right Climate Stuff

“What NASA Has Done and Where NASA Is Going”

Larry Bell, Founder, Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture, College of Engineering, University of Houston, “What Makes People Exceptional”

Benjamin Deniston, LaRouche PAC Scientific Research Team

“LaRouche’s Strategic Defense of Earth”

Q&A Session

PANEL I

Let Us Create a New, More Human Epoch for Mankind

DENNIS SPEED

Lyndon LaRouche: A Talent Well Spent

EIRNS/Stuart Lewis

Dennis Small

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

These are the opening remarks of moderator Dennis Speed to the Schiller Institute conference in Morristown, N.J. on Feb. 16, 2019. Subheads have been added.

I’d like to welcome everyone to today’s Schiller Institute conference, “Let Us Create a New, More Human Epoch for Mankind.” Everyone here knows that this is an occasion which is momentous and historic. And everyone here knows that for many of us, the guiding inspiration of our actions, and in some cases of our lives, Lyndon LaRouche, is no longer physically here with us. We have a quote which is on the back of your program. I only want to refer to the first sentence of it, which is from Lyndon LaRouche on January 19, 2004; a speech he gave on the occasion of Martin Luther King’s birthday weekend:

We’re all mortal, and to arouse in us the passions while we’re alive which will impel us to do good, we have to have a sense that our life and the consuming of our life—the spending of our talent, is going to mean something for coming generations. The best people look for things—like Moses—that are going to happen when he will no longer be around to enjoy them.

When it comes to the issue of coming generations, or what he called economic forecasting also, there’s no one, from the standpoint of simple documented historical record, who was able to accomplish what Lyndon LaRouche did both in that field, and more importantly, in the field of human creativity. I am always honored, on all occasions, to introduce the person who founded the Schiller Institute, and I’m particularly honored on this occasion, to introduce her; and that is Helga Zepp-LaRouche. [Mrs. LaRouche, from the floor of the conference, rose to greet the audience, followed by extensive applause.]

An Astonishing Forecast

Rather than attempt to say anything more than that welcome could say, we will instead allow Lyndon LaRouche to speak for himself, which he was very fond and capable of doing. I mentioned economic forecasting. On July 25, 2007, a year before the world would hear about the necessity for an $880 billion, and then a several trillion-dollar, and then a $16.7 trillion, and then who knows how many trillions of dollars bail-out; before the world would hear about that, Lyndon LaRouche gave a speech on July 25, 2007. Let’s listen to an excerpt from that now:

This occurs at a time when the world monetary financial system is actually now currently in the process of disintegrating. There’s nothing mysterious about this; I’ve talked about it for some time, it’s been in progress, it’s not abating. What’s listed as stock values and market values in the financial markets internationally is bunk! These are purely fictitious beliefs. There’s no truth to it; the fakery is enormous. There is no possibility of a non-collapse of the present financial system—none! It’s finished, now! The present financial system cannot continue to exist under any circumstances, under any Presidency, under any leadership, or any leadership of nations. Only a fundamental and sudden change in the world monetary financial system will prevent a general, immediate chain-reaction type of collapse. At what speed we don’t know, but it will go on, and it will be unstoppable!

One of the most startling of his forecasts occurred in a combination of both a press conference that he gave—Helga was present for this—October 12, 1988 at the Kempinski Hotel in Berlin, where Mr. LaRouche asserted that the time had come for the reunification of Germany. This is one year before the fall of the Berlin Wall. All of us who were around at that time, who are honest, will admit that we had no idea what he was actually talking about. One year later, it occurred. Let’s listen to an excerpt from that speech:

Under the proper conditions, many today will agree, that the time has come for early steps toward the reunification of Germany, with the obvious prospect that Berlin might resume its role as the capital.

For the United States, for Germans, and for Europe generally, the question is: Will this be brought about by assimilating the Federal Republic of Germany and West Berlin into the East Bloc’s economic sphere of influence, or can it be arranged differently? In other words, is a united Germany to become part of a Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals, as President de Gaulle proposed, or, as Mr. Gorbachov desires, a Europe from the Urals to the Atlantic?

I see a possibility that the process of reunification could develop as de Gaulle proposed. I base this possibility upon the reality of a terrible worldwide food crisis which has erupted during the past several months, and will dominate the world’s politics for at least two years to come.

The economy of the Soviet bloc is a terrible, and worsening failure. In Western European culture, we have demonstrated that the successes of nations of big industries depend upon the technologically progressive independent farmer, and what you call in Germany the Mittelstand [Germany’s small and medium-sized entrepreneurs]. Soviet culture in its present form is not capable of applying this lesson. Despite all attempts at structural reforms, and despite any amount of credits supplied from the West, the Soviet bloc economy as a whole has reached the critical point, that, in its present form, it will continue to slide downhill from here on, even if the present worldwide food crisis had not erupted.

I do not foresee the possibility of genuine peace between the United States and Soviet Union earlier than 30 or 40 years still to come. The best we can do in the name of peace, is to avoid a new general war between the powers. This war-avoidance must be based partly on our armed strength, and our political will. It must be based also, on rebuilding the strength of our economies.

At the same time that we discourage Moscow from dangerous military and similar adventures, we must heed the lesson taught us by a great military scientist nearly four centuries ago, Niccolò Machiavelli: We must also provide an adversary with a safe route of escape. We must rebuild our economies to the level at which we can provide the nations of the Soviet bloc an escape from the terrible effects of their economic suffering.

On November 9, one year later, the Berlin Wall fell. On approximately November 10, from jail where he was incarcerated unjustly, Lyndon LaRouche began to formulate a plan which went through various stages, first referred to as the European Triangle, later referred to as the New Silk Road, and then later referred to as the Eurasian Land-Bridge, and ultimately the World Land-Bridge.

EIRNS

“We’re not going to export a few ten or twenty billion dollars’ worth of additional exports. We’re going to export hundreds of cities!”

—Lyndon LaRouche,

in 1978

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

Hundreds of New Cities!

That began a dialogue spearheaded by Helga with Russia, China, and many of the nations of the former East Bloc. But that vision that Lyndon LaRouche had at that time had already been preceded by much earlier discussions. We are all very dramatically impressed and grateful for what was done by the nation of China in lifting 700 million people out of poverty. We’re going to play for you now, something that Lyndon LaRouche discussed with his organization in 1978, at the time that he initiated his first campaign to see the Democratic Party nomination for President. On that occasion, he defined an idea that later on we would refer to as a new economic platform. But he defined a task for America and for Americans that he wanted his Presidency to initiate.

You know what we’re going to do? We’re going to build nuplexes. How do you build a nuplex? You’re going to go out and dig a big crater. You lay a big footing, unless you’ve got bedrock. You don’t care what the terrain is like. It makes no difference. Wherever you are, blast it out, build a crater. Build a crater covering an area the size of a city, a city of a half-million people, or 100,000 people. But build a crater for an industrial city of a new type, from six, seven, or eight stories below the surface. Built it up. Build it up to the surface. On this thing, stick two nuclear plants, of one-half to two gigawatts each, to get a balanced load. String industries around this, using this energy to cut low distribution costs, like child bracelets. Put a chemical industry in there, that sort of thing, desalination, and so forth, using the waste heat and the electrical power. Build housing for the families, modern housing, housing that will last 100 years, for the families of the people who are going to be brought in to do the construction which will be done and completed within a period of 4-6 years.

Build the on-site cultural programs: Schools, universities, technical schools. Everything that a city requires.

And when the project is completed, at the end of six years, these people occupy the factories, because they have been educated. And gradually the Europeans and others who have been phased in will be phased out, except for a few key technicians.

The city, then, is built. It’s modular. You can change it. You can develop it with no big cost. Its transportation systems are built in, and modular for any technological improvements which will be significant in the next 100 years.

The city functions, now, in 4-6 years.

We’re going to build hundreds of these in the next 25 years. Hundreds of them. Hundreds of new cities throughout the world, especially in the developing sector.

These cities will be linked together. They will form a network of high-technology culture, planted in the middle of the rest of the population. And from these cities and through these cities and their universities and technical schools and technical services to the surrounding areas, we’ll lift one generation of the human race up from barbarism and oppression into modern life.

And, in the next 25 years following that, we’ll complete the job. And, within 50 years from now, the human race will be transformed, as we city-builders intend to do it. We’re going to mobilize every industry that exists that’s viable, and every one that can be created, to do it. We’re not going to export a few 10 or 20 billion dollars’ worth of additional exports. We’re going to export hundreds of cities.

EIRNS

“Mankind evolves voluntarily, not by changing his biology, but by changing the noetic powers of his Mind. Only human beings have noetic powers of Mind.”

—Lyndon LaRouche,

at 90

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

Poetry, Unfailing Herald of the Awakening

That is the vision of a poet. Lyndon LaRouche introduced many of us to what you’re about to hear. Here is his reading of a section from Percy Shelley’s “A Defence of Poetry” in 1973:

During a period of reaction which occurred among British intellectuals in the wake of the French Revolution, there was an attempt to explain creativity and art as being something which was explained in which art itself, as independent of political movements of that time.

In rebuttal of this, Shelley wrote an essay, one of his several important essays—I’ll refer to another one later tonight—entitled “A Defence of Poetry.” I’d like to read a section from the conclusion of that, which is a thesis from which we shall work to provide a setting for the purpose of this program:

“For the literature of England, an energetic development of which has ever preceded or accompanied a great and free development of the national will, has arisen as it were from a new birth. In spite of the low-thoughted envy which would undervalue contemporary merit, our own will be a memorable age in intellectual achievements, and we live among such philosophers and poets as surpass beyond comparison any who have appeared since the last national struggle for civil and religious liberty. The most unfailing herald, companion, and follower of the awakening of a great people to work a beneficial change in opinion or institution, is poetry. At such periods there is an accumulation of the power of communicating and receiving intense and impassioned conceptions respecting man and nature. The persons in whom this power resides may often, as far as regards many portions of their nature, have little apparent correspondence with that spirit of good of which they are the ministers. But even whilst they deny and abjure, they are yet compelled to serve, the power which is seated on the throne of their own soul. It is impossible to read the compositions of the most celebrated writers of the present day without being startled with the electric life which burns within their words. They measure the circumference and sound the depths of human nature with a comprehensive and all-penetrating spirit, and they are themselves perhaps the most sincerely astonished at its manifestations; for it is less their spirit than the spirit of the age.”

Our Noetic Powers

Many of us had the privilege of meeting Lyndon LaRouche back in the 1970s. I met him first in December of 1970 at Columbia University. Some of us were rash enough to think that we could master what he knew in a period of a few months. Maybe everybody wasn’t like that; I was less like that. Forty years later, the one thing you had learned was that that was probably not going to happen. At the age of 90, Lyn gave a talk in Europe. I want to point out that while we say he is a poet, and that’s certainly true, Lyn was always, shall we say, very frank about his view of circumstances, politics, and people. Please play the next excerpt.

Without Glass-Steagall right now, civilization is dead. It cannot survive. What does all this mean? First of all, take two things: One, all life is based on an evolutionary process under which species go from lower qualities of development to higher. That’s the animal kingdom. That’s the law of evolution.

Mankind is different than all other kinds of animals, because mankind has the power to evolve, voluntarily. Mankind evolves voluntarily, not by changing his biology, but by changing his Mind. The utilization of the noetic powers of Mind. No animal species really has noetic powers of Mind. Only human beings have noetic powers of Mind.

Therefore, the object is always to go to higher levels of technology, which means kill off the Green policy. If you want to survive, end the Green policy, because that’s a death sentence. It’s a suicide pact.

Mankind must always progress. Learn from the animals! And apply the principles that the animals don’t know how to do. Rise to a higher energy-flux density! How do you do that? You make physical discoveries. You go from lower forms of energy-flux density to higher forms of energy-flux density. You find new applications.

Now, mankind is, for the moment, helpless against the asteroids which are arrayed against us inside the Solar system. We’re helpless against the comets. We saw recently in Russia some quickie comets shooting through there. If they would have had a little bit more energy-flux density in that territory, you wouldn’t have had a large number of people injured, you would have had mass death.

Mankind is faced with mass death, if we fail to progress adequately and rapidly enough in order to defeat the problems.

In the United States and in Europe, you have a common suicide pact. It’s called the Green policy, which is a species suicide pact. It’s mass death. Without an increase in the energy-flux density, expressed in terms of technology and pure power as such, there’s no future for mankind on this planet.

With these kinds of ideas, you would think that Lyndon LaRouche would be a loved figure. Why was that not the case?

EIRNS

“If there is an end to new things to be conquered, new things to be mastered, new changes in the sense of advances in humanity, humanity ends.”

—Lyndon LaRouche, in the mid-1970s

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

Creativity As a Way of Life

In the final concluding excerpt from him, I think you’re going to hear why. He was, almost from birth, an enemy of—well, it had many forms, many names—the British oligarchy and so forth; but it was really Stupidity. Virtually from birth. He believed that Stupidity was not an excuse. Let’s hear our final excerpt.

The Organization, having achieved a certain level of development, and the world requiring certain things from the Organization, the Organization should continue to grow. It should never stop. Any time the Organization finds no new thing to shock it, then it has yet to learn; then creativity has stopped. Creativity is not a voluntary thing. “Oh, I think I’ll be creative today.” It’s not like that; it’s a way of life. It says, “I’m not a cow.” I can never reach a level at which I want to, forever thereafter, squat with the same level of understanding and achievement that I have achieved now.

There is no point in the evolution of progress at which I want to stop. If I have completed the ascent, from some kind of globigerinian creature to a cow, I’m not going to say “Now I’m a cow. I have reached a level of perfection so far above the globigerina that I want to stop; I don’t want to go any farther. I want to sit here and chew my cud and contemplate what I have achieved.”

That’s not life; life goes on. If I can become this, I can become something more. It is necessary. There’s no limit; there’s never an end. If there’s an end to new things to be conquered, new things to be mastered, new changes in the sense of advances in humanity, humanity ends. It goes off the cliff. Gone. Humanity is not a cow; it is not a horse; it is not a chicken. It is not some creature which is fixed by nature to do the same thing as his grandfathers and great-grandfathers. That’s alien to humanity.

If my great-grandfather did it, I shouldn’t do it. Because all I’m doing is repeating his life, rather than using his life as a foundation for advancing further. Therefore, by repeating his life, I make his life boring and meaningless. By using his contribution, to continue the process of human advancement which he, in his turn, furthered, I give meaning to his life, by not re-living it. If I re-live his life, I turn his life into a bad play, without meaning.

Creativity is a way of life. So, I’d just to say on behalf of all of us, and much of the rest of humanity, “Thank you, Lyndon LaRouche.” [applause]

EIRNS/Stuart Lewis

“The present financial system cannot continue to exist under any circumstances, under any Presidency, under any leadership, or any leadership of nations.”

—Lyndon LaRouche

July 25, 2007

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

JACQUES CHEMINADE

The Coming World of Lyndon LaRouche

EIRNS/Stuart Lewis

Jacques Cheminade

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

This is the prepared text of Jacques Cheminade’s address to the Schiller Institute conference in Morristown, N.J. on Feb. 16, 2019. He is a long-time LaRouche associate and is President of the Solidarité et Progrès party in France. He has thrice run for President of France. Subheads have been added.

It is for me a great honor to speak here this morning, about the Coming World of Lyndon LaRouche, and much more than a great honor—an immense joy. Joy not only to be back among you in the U.S., but the true joy of life, as Lyndon LaRouche told us in 1988, “such that, if we were to cut short, at any point, our mortal life by spending it in a way which ensured the cause of those hundreds of billions of souls yet to be born, we could walk to death with joy because we had completed our life, fulfilled it.” The true joy of being a real human being among other true human beings. Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Lyndon LaRouche’s wife and heir, challenges us today: “It is now up to us to realize his life’s work.”

Looking at all of us here, I see us with the eyes of the present, with all our imperfections in this terrible moment for humanity. But if I see us with the eyes of the future, I am filled with hope, because our lives are shaped by the history of an organization which always thought and fought to be at the forefront. Hope—beyond pain and sorrow, hope across the boundaries of nations and time. It is with confidence in what we will accomplish, mustering the strength to fight and win, that I see the coming world as the world of Lyndon LaRouche.

We have before us the possibility of a paradigm change, freeing the world from the destructive grip of the British Empire and its ideology. But it will happen only if all of us become guiding lights, ahead of what we are, and not followers of easy paths. So, let’s do it—because it is our mandate and our mission. This conference, to make sense, has to be followed by unprecedented political organizing to inspire minds and extend our hands to others, beyond all parochialisms, personal biases and borders.

Our commitments—a New Bretton Woods, a National Bank, the Glass-Steagall Act and fusion energy—are not mere words or recipes to be repeated, but powerful ideas defining a dynamic unity. If they do not become real, the world is doomed. LaRouche’s Four Laws will define the future of humanity, if there is going to be one. It is as simple as that, and it is what should make us decide what we will do with our lives. Not by adopting a set of cultish lifesavers but as an intervention in history which confronts our quality of being human.

The human house is threatened both by a financial tsunami and by the flames of war.

Policy to Support Speculators and

Destroy the Rest

At this point, even the Chairwoman of the International Monetary Fund, Christine Lagarde, has warned that the world is at risk of an economic and financial tempest. Even the guardians of the financial temple feel themselves compelled to warn about what is about to happen.

The statistics, which are the shadows on the wall of the cave, are clear. For every 1% increase of Gross National Product (GNP) generated by the economy, between 4% and 6% of debt has to be issued over that same GNP. The conditions to reimburse that debt are obviously not being met, and until now a default has been avoided only by pumping more and more liquidities into the system. Fake money is not fake news. The situation is of the same type but much worse than the one we had just before the subprime mortgage crisis of 2007-2008.

Today, even if the home buyers are in a bad situation once again, the center of the crisis is located in the so-called non-financial firms. Money has been lent to them even though they were in bad shape. These are zombie firms, zombies like in the Hollywood movies. They don’t produce enough to pay the interest on their debts. Therefore, they have no other choice but to become predators eating the flesh of others.

CC/Eric Chan

European Central Bank headquarters building in Frankfurt, Germany.

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

The loans are aggregated in the form of securities and resold on the markets under the name of Collateralized Loan Obligations (CLOs). It is again a form of securitization backed, not by real estate debt like the subprimes, but by debts of middle-sized and large businesses pooled together and passed on in various tranches to different classes of investors. The wormy apples are therefore doomed to rot all the other apples in the barrel, just as with the subprimes. The global risk, in the coming years, is estimated at an amount of at least 10 trillion dollars. Not to mention the student debt, of which 20% is already actually or potentially in default, nor the debt of car purchasers, whose loan repay periods are longer than the average life expectancy of their vehicles. These two debts alone represent more than 3 trillion dollars.

The world’s global debt has now reached more than 250 trillion dollars, while the debt on derivative products, which are bets on future prices of all sorts of commodities and paper securities, is estimated to be at 1.5 quadrillion dollars. It is obvious that such a debt pyramid, mostly amounting to financial gambling debts, cannot and will never be reimbursed. Until now, the financial casino has not been closed down, because all the gamblers have been provided with fake money at zero or almost zero percent interest rates! But this easy money cannot continue to flow forever and will stop indeed very soon. Because if interest rates continue to increase, borrowing will become too costly, and the gamblers will be flushed away. And if interest rates remain at the present low rates, the benefits for lending will remain too low, and the lenders will evaporate. It is the whole money system that is therefore sentenced to death!

The U.S. Federal Reserve, as well as the European Central Bank, the Bank of Japan and the Bank of England have all put monetary fat into their balance sheets, to the level of imploding them, but they can’t reduce it because if they do, all the gamblers would die of monetary starvation. So, they would rather maintain the gamblers and starve the rest.

Musk and Other Malthusians

It is in this context that the gamblers are betting on NBIC: nanotechnologies, biotechnologies, IT and cognitive science investments. They are betting on their control over Big Data, which means trillions and quadrillions of megabytes of data, to control the economies and the people. They expect that robots, computers and associated artificial intelligence (AI) software will control the behavior of people through the monopolization of their data and the pirating of their brains.

Elon Musk, for example, is investing in computer interfaces which, he hopes, will change the way people think. The Silicon Valley hippies of the old days have become the auxiliaries of the present-day mind controllers. Is this thing serious? Well, obviously not if human beings think and work as human beings—if human beings are creative, which is our responsibility here. But yes, it will work, if human beings allow themselves to be controlled and stripped of their capacity to create. I must warn you that that process has started. Their plan is to replace what they call “useless social classes” by more efficient new technologies. Which means that they consider a majority of human beings as unable to perform creative tasks, or better said, they are confident they can make them unable to perform creative tasks.

In that context, the old Malthusian idea is making a great comeback in their dirty minds. To the question, “What are we going to do with the useless classes?” they answer: “First, prevent them from successfully breeding (population control); second, immerse them in an ocean of virtual experiences (if you don’t believe what I am saying, look at the majority of our kids spending more than five hours per day in front of their screens); and third, well, if the worst would come, viruses or wars might become necessary.”

If you don’t believe me, there are hundreds of serious or bizarre books available on this issue, for example the best seller in France, Yuval Noah Harari’s Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow. Harari, like Aldous Huxley in his 1931 Brave New World, pretends to denounce what he sarcastically describes, but which in fact he takes pleasure in learning from his experimenter friends.

Behind this, we have the military complex, which is financial and not industrial, as President Eisenhower had warned against in 1961. California’s Silicon Valley—and other similar places throughout the world—are financed by the Pentagon or other military establishments to work on military applications. In the U.S., the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is at the forefront of this, along with other agencies of data control such as Palantir Technologies, founded by the CIA in 2003. This is where the British project to control the applications of science is at its top. The data is shared among the Five Eyes (United Kingdom, U.S.A., Canada, New Zealand and Australia). France now plays a role of junior associated member through its knowledge of how to control the information going through submarine cables between France and the African countries.

Trump or Thermonuclear War

A cyber war is already ongoing, which can degenerate at any time, mainly between the Five Eyes on the one hand, and Russia and China on the other. There is a connecting point between the financial flows, which circulate at the speed of light through the cyber world, the cyber war, and the open war itself. It is the reason why the present situation is so dangerous: The British Empire in its Anglo-American form (British brains and American muscle) is fully aware of its own weaknesses in the world to come, and is playing its last card in this domain. It is acting like a wounded tiger, a situation in which the tiger becomes a man-hunter. It means control of communications and weapons on Earth and military control of outer space.

Donald Trump, whatever his flaws, does not come from that underworld of educated criminals. As a good business person, he wants to reach peace in the world to make good deals. He is not ideologically flawed like the Wall Street/City of London politicians. He utterly dislikes the war-mongers of the CIA and the FBI. That’s why the Anglo-American oligarchy wants to get rid of him and his close friends. Either by a direct, political or physical elimination, or from inside, by profiling and surrounding him with “expert counselors” from their world.

Until now Trump, in his own way, is doing pretty well. He is getting rid of the Russiagate hoax, he has created a spirit of peace with Kim Jong-un in Singapore and, now, the American negotiating team in China is trying to complete a trade agreement between the two countries. Trump said he might be flexible on the March 1 deadline set for increasing tariffs on Chinese imports, if no deal has been reached. Thanks in part to your efforts, and in particular to Barbara Boyd’s reports on the legal assassin Robert Mueller, the American population smells that the operation to tumble Trump out of the White House comes from no-good people and, beyond that, is targeting the American presidency as a power.

Let’s nonetheless consider all the sources of immediate danger. In the minds of some, the so-called trade war against China is aimed at becoming a technological cold war, preventing China from accomplishing its “Made in China 2025” high technology objectives. Moreover, U.S. Secretary of State Michael Pompeo in Poland raved against Russia’s “grand master plan for dominating Europe and reasserting its influence on the world stage.” Before, at the NATO defense minister’s conference in Brussels and in Warsaw, he raved against Huawei and against the threat posed by Russia and China. Not exactly in conformity with Trump’s call for peace through common development. The Chinese reacted by stating:

The U.S. is lobbying all other NATO countries to boycott Huawei equipment with the obvious intention of making its allies participate in a crackdown on Chinese high-tech companies. . . . If U.S. allies stop using Huawei equipment, no longer purchase energy from Russia, and further alienate China and Russia at the demand of Washington while increasing imports from the U.S. and following the U.S. lead in everything, then NATO will start to resemble the old Warsaw Pact.

This was published in Global Times precisely while Pompeo was in Warsaw. Chinese irony!

Lowering the Barriers to War

Even worse is the dismantling of all the international arrangements made during the Cold War to prevent an open military conflict. The United States withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in 2002 and has now deployed anti-missile weapons around the Russian borders in Europe, despite the fact that Russia had been promised at the time of the fall of the Berlin Wall that NATO forces would only go into the former East Germany and no farther.

It has been acknowledged in the meantime that such defensive anti-ballistic missiles can eventually, with the recent technological progress, be transformed into offensive ballistic weapons. On October 20, 2018, Trump announced that the U.S. would leave the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty within six months if Russia did not destroy its 9M729 missiles and associated systems. In the meantime, the U.S. itself is producing low-yield nuclear warheads, like the W76-2 for the U.S. Navy’s Trident submarine-launched ballistic missile.

As Boston-based journalist James Carroll wrote, “it isn’t designed as a deterrent against another country launching its nukes; it’s designed to be used [in a classical war theater]. This is the weapon that can make the previously ‘unthinkable’ thinkable.”

As for the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), negotiated between the U.S. and Russia in 1991, there are no real signs of new negotiations for its third version, or New START. Adding to that is the intended militarization of outer space, in contradiction to the spirit of the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, in which conditions are coming into being for an extremely dangerous situation, even more dangerous than under the MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction, doctrine operational during the Cold War. The best experts consider that the world military situation is potentially even more dangerous today than during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis.

Now, in the present situation, the Western powers have dropped the international rule of non-intervention into the domestic affairs of other countries. The case of Venezuela is very dangerous, with Mexican president López Obrador having to remind everyone of the “principles of non-intervention, self-determination and peaceful resolution of conflicts.” The U.S. Special Envoy to Venezuela is neo-con and convicted felon Elliot Abrams, one of the historical enemies of Lyndon LaRouche.

In the case of Iran, with the reign of U.S. extra-territoriality, which de facto prevents any country from trading with another if the United States forbids it, the Iranian economy is strangled, in a recession with a minus 4% rate of growth. The skilled young population entering the labor market cannot find jobs. Two points are worth considering here. First, Iran has never violated the nuclear treaty that it signed in 2015 and is only being blamed for producing missiles that no treaty prevents it from building. Second, Iran’s public debt is about 40% of its Gross National product, while France’s debt is approaching 100% and the American is above that! Talk about financial virtue!

And as far as virtue is concerned, French President Emmanuel Macron, who goes around lecturing everybody, has not only promoted military interventions in Syria and Libya, but is now interfering in the internal affairs of Venezuela.

Human Trafficking Is ‘Good for GNP’

The European Union is in shambles, in total disunity, with no political vision, no sense of the future and no respect for national sovereignties. President Macron speaks of “European sovereignty,” which is a total illusion, because there is no such thing as a “European people,” as well as a chimera, since the Europeanist leaders themselves do not hide from the people that, for their good, they have to build Europe against them.

A revealing aspect of the state of things in the EU is that its official statistics office, Eurostat, has ordered all state members to include in their respective Gross National Product calculations, all possible trades, including drug trades, trading in human beings and weapons trades. A demand morally and economically insane, criminal, but “logical” in a monetarist economy, which pumps up the Gross National Product by adding all the money values, independently of their effect on the physical economy!

China, United States and the Financial Occupation

Let’s look now at the Chinese. Their representatives at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland were pretty blunt. I have gathered a few quotes to give you the sense of what is really going on. So, let’s listen to those Chinese:

The recipe of Chinese policies is productivity, family values, savings orientation and control of the financial system. . . . The real question is not the level of debts, but how the credit is used and where it goes. . . . China is ready to open up to the world, to open up is good for China, China is ready to play in the global economy, but the real question is: Is the world ready? . . . China will be the main source of added wealth for the world during many years; therefore to launch trade wars against China may not be a very good idea. . . . The real debt problem is the American debt; the problem for the U.S. is to sell its debt to the rest of the world.

The truth is expressed in just a few words. So, does this mean that the Chinese with their One Belt, One Road Initiative will be the solution to all our problems? Should Trump or Italy farà da sé, that is, do it by themselves? They are two major opportunities, but of course, not the solution in itself. We have a great task before us, the most interesting task: With all those best possible allies, and considering that the key to the world’s direction lies presently here, in the United States, our task is to be the Aufklärer, the pathfinders for the coming LaRouche world.

The first thing to remind Americans of, is that the U.S. economic system is a credit system based on the Constitutional authority of the government to issue and control its own money. As George Boris, one of the advisers of both Charles de Gaulle and Pierre Mendès-France once said, “If the state does not control its money, it is the money that controls the state.” Under the Constitution, the Congress of the United States utters currency as credit against the United States itself, betting not on the markets but on the future of the nation and its people.

The main function of this credit should be to supply capital funds for long-term capital investments, in the public sector and spilling over into the private sector. To free us from the shackles of the British financial casino, we should separate banking activities (Glass-Steagall), protecting commercial banking and banning financial speculation from state protection, as we put the existing system through a controlled bankruptcy reorganization. This is what Lyndon LaRouche repeated so many times, and what reality can become now in the coming financial tempest.

Internationally, this means a cooperative set of treaty agreements of between 25- and 50-years’ duration, as the Chinese government is doing with partner states to build the New Silk Roads. This is the way President Franklin Roosevelt wanted to organize the world after World War II, a project sabotaged by his successor in office, Harry Truman, and the British. In the meantime, Winston Churchill was delivering speeches in Europe and his famous Westminster College speech [in Fulton, Missouri], in which he openly described how British-led policies, and forces, would put Europe under control. Our LaRouche moment is to overcome this process of self-destruction and free ourselves from the financial occupation.

Thomas Bresson

Yellow Vest demonstration in Belfort, France on December 1, 2018.

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

A Profound Change in the People

I have no time to stress how we should also free ourselves from the cultural occupation which is the other leg alongside the financial one. I will always remember the day in my life when I heard Lyn describing this as a “double-pronged process”: the financial looting and the counter-cultural destruction of the creative powers of human beings, through the sex-rock-drug counter-culture, which today has become incommensurably worse and even more addictive than in those times.

Remember that Yuval Noah Harari, the author of Homo Deus which I quoted before, said that the aim is to immerge the useless classes in an ocean of virtual experiences. In Japan, and spreading to other countries, we have the hikikomori, young males who are unable to leave their homes, imprisoned in their computer-based virtual universe. Today, the financial and cultural occupations are based on the cult of entropy, the world doomed to destruction by today’s “catastrophists,” the last straw of the Green New Deal.

Bruce Director showed—I mention him but I could have mentioned all the others who contributed to the presentation of Lyn’s conceptions in a recent six-class series—Bruce Director showed, how creative discoveries, which are the basis for the economy, are anti-entropic by nature and tuned towards the advantage of the other, the passion for creation—the agapic commitment to increase the creative powers of the other, a power behind which, as Max Planck, the German friend of Albert Einstein, once said, “. . .there is a conscious, intelligent Mind or Spirit.”

Our choruses here are the opposite of a world doomed to destruction. They are an immersion in the agapic experience of beauty, the discovery of our voice, the voice of the others, and the polyphony, which composes a thing of beauty which is a joy forever, our diverse contributions generating a beautiful unity above each of them.

Our challenge is to create the same “unity above diversities” in our political action. I am convinced that the United States, beyond what I see and read on Facebook or Twitter accounts, is a land of opportunity for such a breakthrough. I have read from some of you that in Texas and Florida you have met a process of change in the population of a far more fundamental depth that even what occurred during the now remote LaRouche SDI moment.

. . . So They Can Build a World Land-Bridge

Now let me say a word about our French Yellow Vests. What is happening is definitely related to the disappointment with Macron, but it involves much, much deeper issues. First, as in Great Britain or here in the United States, the conscience of the Yellow Vests is one of people who have been abandoned by the elites, people against whom the elites have seceded. Second, is the drop in purchasing power of these people of working-class backgrounds who have been forced to accept service jobs, often very far from their homes. The “ecologist” taxes, added to the price of gasoline and diesel, have produced the shock of the proverbial final straw on the camel’s back.

Third, they are legitimately convinced that they are the castoffs of financial globalization, losing access to public services and good schools for their children, two social benefits which have been the spine of the French state since the adoption, at the end of World War II, of the program of the Council of the Resistance Against Nazism and the financial feudalities who allied with Nazism. This so-called peripheral and forgotten France has suddenly occupied the traffic circles to show that it exists and demands justice. It has generated a surge of Rabelaisian French—crude and dense, even if imperfect—against the frozen words of the court and the administration.

It is a ground-swell wave throughout France and also in Europe. It is what Rosa Luxemburg in her time called a “mass strike ferment,” and I stress the word “ferment,” until now with no real national leaders, but an agglomeration of local and regional organizers. They are now conscious, and they are starting to engage themselves in a process of economic, social, and for some of them, also cultural education. We are involving some of them in the basics of physical economics education. Recently, one Yellow Vest from Southern France, close to us, wrote a petition for a Citizens Initiative Referendum, in French called RIC, calling for a National Bank and for the French state to recover the sovereign power to utter credit.

The interesting point is that they demand to have time for reflection and for making their own decisions, and reject the rotten political parties. All kinds of operations and provocations have been launched against them, but we hope that their commitment to justice and a better future will lead them to change the politics of our country. Our main task is to help to give them a better sense of who the enemy is and how to fight it. They are definitely one part of the coming world of Lyndon LaRouche, provided that we keep up the good work and uplift the ferment.

The Chinese sign that means danger at a point of juncture, is very proper to our times, because it is also a juncture at which things can change, in a world where people fight to build roads and bridges, not just houses, where they can build a world land-bridge to bring a change to civilization, transforming danger into opportunity.

Take Responsibility for the Creation

It is in Lyndon LaRouche’s words that we find the best guidance above and beyond, in these times of trouble. So, let’s be with him. The following remarks are from a webcast address that he gave on Aug. 1, 2009. Let’s listen to his wise and passionate words. I picked up LaRouche’s last answer, to a question from a 21-year-old single mother from Argentina:

My question to you is this: What do we do, to transmit to the majority of the world’s youth, who only live in the present—and do so very badly—the idea that they would have a concrete, real and effective future, based only on cultivating the creative abilities of their minds?

LaRouche responded:

Let’s take the space program. We need to get at the heart of these matters, in an exemplary way, and an exemplary way should also be a highly practicable way. I think the objective—see, it involves a concept, of a change in the image of what man is. When you go to constant acceleration, as a required modality, in flight of a human being from one planet to another, you’re operating in a completely new kind of domain, the domain of the relativistic relations, relativistic transport. And this is a great challenge: Because you have to think about when you’re getting out of a 1-gravity situation on Earth, into this kind of artificial gravity, you are in a relativistic environment. Your definition, your terms of thinking about the same old things you knew before, are now presented in a new way.

The human race, eventually, has to live in the universe; we have to live in the Solar system; we have to live in the galaxy, in the longer term. We have to face the challenge that that represents. See, you think like an immortal person: that is, to think in such terms that you are thinking about mankind in the distant future, and you’re thinking about your place in relationship to mankind, in the distant future, and even distant planets. Because you’re looking for something in yourself, which has permanent value. We’re all mortal. We’re born and we die. But we’re not animals.

We’re creatively thinking creatures. And the meaning of our life does not lie in our biological existence as such. It lies in the meaning for humanity, before us and after us, in what our lives have contributed to the existence of humanity as a whole. And therefore, the best way, the practical way, is always to look ahead, to look as far ahead as you can look, into the future, and see what it is you must do for the future, so that our hand is at the tiller, long after you’re dead, in that way.

And obviously, if you’re going to chart a course, you have to chart a good choice of course. So, pick one! Pick a destiny! Pick a destiny, two generations, three generations, four generations beyond your life today! Try to reach that far. Try to make something that you do, something that contributes to the future of humanity! Find your identity in the future of humanity, after death; commit the kind of acts and kind of development that mean that. And act accordingly: because that is the secret of true happiness. That is the “pursuit of happiness,” as understood by Leibniz, as recorded in his second reply to Locke, which became the cornerstone of our Constitution, through, first, the Declaration of Independence, where it is the meaning of our existence as a nation, and was reflected again, in the Preamble of the Constitution, in its own way.

We have to be immortal. We have to be immortal, by assuming immortal responsibility. Reach beyond our own life, to what we can do now, which will touch in a beneficial way, generations of people after we’re dead. In that way, you know, you’re immortal. If you think like that, you know you are immortal. If you can act like that, you do even better.

There isn’t anything else to add; our mission is to act, taking full responsibility for the Creation.

JOHN GONG

Chinese Investment and

American Infrastructure Under

the New Sino-U.S. Relations

EIRNS/Stuart Lewis

Dr. John Gong

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

These are the remarks of Dr. John Gong to the Schiller Institute conference in Morristown, N.J. on Feb. 16, 2019. Dr. Gong is Professor of Economics at the University of International Business & Economics in Beijing, China. This is the speech as delivered, combined with material from his written text that Dr. Gong omitted because of time constraints. Subheads have been added.

Dear Mrs. LaRouche, leaders of the Schiller Institute, ladies and gentlemen. It is a great honor to be invited to the Schiller Institute’s conference in Morristown, New Jersey. It’s a beautiful North Jersey town that I am so familiar with. Not far from this hotel is the Morristown Green. Take the second exit onto South Street, drive for less than two miles to arrive at 445 South Street. That is the complex where I used to go every weekday for seven years, until 2001, when I was a research scientist at the Applied Research Lab at Bell Communications Research. Today I am in China, teaching economics at the University of International Business and Economics. In a way, my personal experiences, both in the United States and in China, testify to the extent to which our two great nations are interconnected and our two great economies are intertwined.

The State of Sino-U.S. Relations

I want to start off by giving you an assessment of the current status of Sino-U.S. relations. First, as we all know, we are unfortunately engaged in a trade war. Official tariffs were first slapped on $45 billion worth of Chinese exports on July 6, two days after America’s Independence Day. Rounds of additional tariffs ensued from both sides, until the two Presidents met at the G20 summit in Argentina on December 1, 2018, where a truce was reached so as to leave some more time for further negotiations. China committed to buy several billion dollars’ worth of American agricultural and energy products, including some immediately, while the U.S. side promised to postpone for 90 days raising tariff rate from 10% to 25%, which will expire on March 1, this year.

Three rounds of negotiations have taken place so far in Washington, D.C. and in Beijing. Just yesterday a round of talks was concluded with the American delegation led by U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, who were also well received by President Xi, which is a very good sign. According to President Trump, this round of talks went extremely well. I am less concerned about the prospect of reaching a trade deal here.

As the largest trading nation and the second largest economy, China cannot afford to go back to an old world severed from the global system of trade and capital investment. On the American side, although there are people close to the President who view these destructive tariffs as, indeed, the ultimate means intended for a total decoupling strategy, I believe that at least President Trump thinks differently and he needs to close what he describes as the largest trade deal ever in history, according to the published transcript of a private telephone conversation with Bob Woodward in the Washington Post, before Woodward’s book, Fear: Trump in the White House, came out. After three rounds of ministerial level talks, there will still be some thorny issues left to be haggled over personally by Presidents Trump and Xi, such that both sides can somehow declare victory.

It may happen before March 1, the deadline, or it may be a few weeks after. That doesn’t matter. That’s not a big deal.

I am more concerned about overall Sino-U.S. relations. Aside from the prospect of reaching an historic trade deal, the relationship is facing long-term difficulties that impose great constraint on our further economic relations. On the surface, our dispute appears to be about America’s trade deficit with China, which reached $375 billion in 2017, according to U.S. statistics, but lying at the heart of the matter, as we all know it, is America’s concern for the rise of China’s comprehensive national power, including economic power—soft power in the Chinese vocabulary, sharp power in American vocabulary, or whatever definition of power scholars come up with. And I venture to take a step further in stating that the heart of the heart of the matter is Washington’s concern for losing its technology edge to China, and perhaps more importantly, what America perceives as the reasons behind this trend.

The American Narrative

The American narrative, which is in wide consensus across aisles in Congress, is that China is able to progress quickly mostly because of the notion of state-steered capitalism, for things like industrial policy, state subsidies, support of state-owned enterprises [SOEs], and other contentious structural issues. About technology and innovation, China advances mostly because of IPR theft and coercion. Although all these issues are of concern to Washington, by far the most important issue is with respect to technology and innovation. In that regard, keeping a technology edge is vital for maintaining good American jobs and its defense supremacy.

Fair enough. I think it is indeed a legitimate demand that respect for IPR, that is Intellectual Property Rights, should constitute an indispensable component of fair and just global competition, both among companies and among nations. Matt Pottinger, Senior Director for Asian Affairs at the National Security Council, famously said about the competition between China and the U.S., “In the United States, competition is not a four-letter word.”

The Reality

But I am not sure a nation can climb up the technology ladder by just theft and coercion. I have visited dozens of companies in China, which have never gone through technology transfers of any kind, but are now thriving on global markets. For example, Sany Heavy Industry’s Chief Technical Officer (CTO) told me that Sany has been indigenous from day one, and that innovation, on its own, has always been in the company’s genes. But notwithstanding whether all of these IPR-related accusations are true or not, let’s talk about ways to address these issues so that the two great nations can avoid a kind of Thucydides Trap, such that we have tragically seen in history.

2019 National Intelligence Strategy report issued by Dan Coats, Director of National Intelligence.

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

Today America labels China as a competitor, a rival, an adversary. It hasn’t been elevated to enemy status yet. Let me quote one paragraph in the latest 2019 National Intelligence Strategy report issued by Dan Coats, the current Director of National Intelligence, who leads the intelligence community of 16 federal agencies:

Chinese military modernization and continued pursuit of economic and territorial predominance in the Pacific region and beyond, remain a concern, though opportunities exist to work with Beijing on issues of mutual concern, such as North Korean aggression and continued pursuit of nuclear and ballistic missile technology. . . .

That those statements put our relations still on a hopeful footing. The paragraph about Russia doesn’t have that though.

The prospect of China taking over the U.S. as the largest economy, and the accompanying comprehensive power, scares a lot of people in Washington. But allow me, as an economist, to question the validity underlying America’s concern for China’s rise. In economics there is this convergence theory, postulating that growth rates for advanced economies will eventually converge, and that the size of an economy is essentially driven by population. Currently, China is still growing faster than the United States, which is a bit over 6%, about 2% more than the U.S. growth rate. But I don’t see the days of over 6% growth rate in China lasting very long. We are going to quickly enter the 5% growth rate territory.

The trend in population is even more revealing. China is most likely to decline in population, while the U.S. is absolutely rising. By 2050, the U.S. population, with a higher birth rate and aided by immigration, is likely to increase to close to 500 million people, while China’s population is likely to decline to near one billion people. So, over a long period of time, if we are patient enough, and forward-looking enough, I am not even convinced that China is going to take over the U.S. in any significant way. What I see is a picture of convergence in terms of economic power in light of the economic and demographic trends in both countries. What I see, at most, is a bipolar world, if we will ever reach there, in which China and the United States will probably be comparable in most aspects of power metrics. And to be honest, believe me—even this scenario is many, many years away.

Some History

The second American concern is with respect to the issue of the China development model in competition with America’s cherished free-market model. That is of course the issue of the “Beijing Consensus“ versus the “Washington Consensus.” China has its own constraint in interactions with the world due to its unique political and economic system. But I don’t believe that Beijing intends to promote its model worldwide as it did in exporting revolution in the 1970s, which as we all know turned out to be a total fiasco. China learned that lesson and it won’t export ideology anymore.

I may further draw historic inspirations to instill some more confidence in this view. Chinese history is indisputably more of a history of a victim of aggression than aggression. Even during the time when the Chinese fleet ruled supreme on the high seas, we never had a wicked design toward the land our ships reached.

In China’s Ming Dynasty, within 30 years starting from 1405, a royal court official, Zheng He, led seven maritime voyages across the Southeast Asia region, through the Strait of Malacca into the Indian Ocean, and sailed as far as the Kenya coastal areas of Africa. This is 87 years earlier than Christopher Columbus’s historic voyage to the Caribbean. While Columbus sailed with three ships, Zheng He’s fleet consisted of 317 ships with about 28,000 crewmen altogether. We did not colonize places we reached—with sugar and coffee plantations based on African slavery—even though our ships were at least four times larger than those of Christopher Columbus. The size of our fleet was a hundred times larger than that of Christopher Columbus, and our voyage was taken 87 years earlier than Christopher Columbus. And yes, we reached Africa too.

So, the regime in Beijing is not interested in competing with America globally on spread of ideology. And I want to take a step further, by postulating audaciously that the ideological differences embedded in the Beijing Consensus and Washington Consensus are grossly exaggerated, and definitely smaller than many scholars believe. The China development model, as first heralded by Mr. Deng Xiaoping, is flexible, adaptive, and largely deemphasizes ideological penchants in the first place. In fact, some even go so far as to claim that the China development model is essentially having no model.

My own conclusion is that the China development model mostly encompasses the following five aspects: the role of the state which entails industrial policy and the state-owned enterprises phenomenon; the foreign direct investment and exports duo—which is a very successful recipe; a priority placed on economic development at all costs; institutions for efficient but not necessarily liberal governance; and finally, a flexible, incremental and experimental approach to introducing reforms.

China’s Development Model

So, if one compares the above aspects of the China development model with American ideological core values, there are actually more things in common than differences. For example, take sociologist Robin Williams’ analysis of American ideological core values as an example. He lists the following: freedom, individualism, idealizing what is practical, volunteerism, mobility, patriotism, progress, and the American dream. The way I see it, the only thing that is fundamentally difficult to reconcile is mostly with respect to the notion of freedom. Both countries have different notions of freedom, I guess.

So, if I am successful in convincing you, the Sino-U.S. relationship is devoid of ideological competition, and what is left of the American concern must then be in areas of geopolitics, driven by Realpolitik. And the very foundation of that, in essence, is an economic competition story. But a quick review of history highlights the fact that America’s and China’s economies are fundamentally intertwined, and fundamentally complementary toward each other, in nature. The north Pacific trading network, also involving Japan and South Korea, forms the world’s largest global value chain. China’s economic success is partially a story of success of corporate China’s participation in this America-led global value chain.

In addition, corporate America’s operations in China represent approximately a $400 billion commercial interest. About 40% of China’s exports are associated with foreign multinationals operating in China. The majority of the top-twenty list of the largest exporters in China are either OEMs [original equipment manufacturers] of corporate America or corporate America itself. The Chinese and American economies are complementary because of natural and human resource endowments respectively. America’s agricultural and energy products are highly competitive in global markets, and so are its high-tech sectors. China’s efficient manufacturing contributes to the low prices at Walmart and Amazon.com.

Wikimedia Commons

Yearly Pacific Ocean trade flow is valued at $800 billion.

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

Adding goods and services together, the trade flow across the Pacific represents close to $800 billion of commercial interest—and that’s a lot of money. Only 18 economies in the world have a GDP size greater than that. And this tremendous $800 billion commercial interest is the fundamental bedrock of a peaceful relationship between our two countries.

Against that backdrop, today’s China-U.S. relations face a Thucydides trap that is different from historical examples due to these very intertwining and complementary economic attributes. That doesn’t mean it does not have its fair share of problems and frictions. But, fundamentally, this is a different type of Thucydides trap than history has ever seen. I call it the “economic Thucydides trap,” as most of the areas of true contention manifest in economic relations between the two, which could be partially addressed jointly by three sides. China and U.S., situated an ocean apart, do not have deep national security conflicts, barring the Taiwan issue. Even Taiwan’s strategic importance to the U.S. has been waning over time, as modern military technology is running less relevant.

As I’ve been arguing all along, potential frictions and conflicts are more likely to be rooted in a unique economic Thucydides trap. The possibility of escaping this trap exists, as does the hope of a peaceful and harmonious coexistence between corporate China and corporate America. And the answer is very simple: The planet is a large enough place to accommodate two giants at the same time, as long as each side is recognizant and considerate of the other side’s needs and interests. Corporate China and corporate America can cooperate while competing. In some instances, one or more should align them together to seek joint interests in global markets.

In the automobile industry, the success of the Renault-Nissan lines testifies to the viability of such a broad cross-border cooperation. Why can’t this model not be tried here, as well, in China? Some may question this model from an ideological perspective in pointing out the mass dominance of China’s SOE behemoths in certain sectors. But one only needs to look at the cooperative relationship between General Motors and Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation [SAIC], which is an SOE in China. They have a successful joint venture based in Shanghai going back decades. Today GM sells more cars in China than in the U.S. During the 2008 financial crisis, SAIC extended a helping hand to help GM weather through its hard time. Today the two companies cooperate extensively on global markets, even in areas of R&D and innovation.

Such a close relationship in my opinion should evolve to potential levels that it jointly becomes one. Is this wonderful hypothetical company an American company? Or is it a Chinese company? It doesn’t matter. I would call it a global company, in the age of globalization.

Industrial Policy in China & the U.S.

China could also benefit from being selective in its industrial policy objectives. Industrial policy is controversial in the academic community. But one has to concede that America has its own fair share of industrial policy that is only different in scale but not in substance from China’s. For example, the U.S. has the DARPA [Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency] program, its world-renowned national laboratories under the Department of Energy, the massive research funding from the National Institutes of Health, and the many grants from the National Science Foundation programs. A few days ago, President Trump signed an executive order to promote artificial intelligence development. That smacks every bit of industrial policy.

CC/Jeremy Elson

America takes pride in its Boeing airplanes, while China prides itself on its high speed railways. Shown here is Boeing’s Everett, Washington facility (above), and a China Railways CRH2E “Harmony” high speed train arriving at Beijing’s West Railway Station (below).

CC/BY-SA 3.0

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

Having said that, I think it doesn’t hurt China’s interests in focusing on a policy objective of excelling in select areas as opposed to being mediocre in all things. For example, the U.S. has pride in its Boeing airplanes, while China has prides in its high speed railway. Some Washington think-tanks accuse China for being an innovation autarky. But if an autarkical approach is to be avoided, strategic trust needs to be established between the two sides, for the long term. And in this regard, recent actions from Washington, especially from the intelligence and the defense complex wings of the executive branch regarding Huawei, are very disappointing. Huawei may have made mistakes in the past in other areas, but there has never been a shred of evidence that the company is engaged in intelligence and espionage work for the Chinese government.

Washington’s conviction-by-hypothesis is built on a statute in China, called Intelligence Law, Article 7, which says corporate entities in China have the obligation to cooperate with the government. But there is a higher constitution in China, which says the government protects private companies’ interests. Huawei’s CEO, Mr. Ren Zhenfei said very clearly that he would never put his customers’ interests ahead of anything else, and his statement does have a legal basis—which is what I am talking about—the point that the Chinese government, according to the constitution, should never put Huawei in harm’s way on the global market.

So, I’m going to skip a few slides.

Another dimension of escaping an economic “Thucydides Trap” is along the market geographic dimension. Corporate America usually does not go to Africa. Corporate America is limited in its presence in South America, South Asia, and Southeast Asia. Its strength is in Europe and the North America markets. I have always advised corporate China executives to go to Africa, to go to South America, and to those places where there are more opportunities than competition. By a friendly geographic division of the global market, corporate China and corporate America can both thrive on their own.

The Belt & Road Initiative

Last I want to talk about the Belt and Road initiative and its potential implications for Chinese investment in the U.S. Foreign direct investment between the two countries strengthens our economic relations, serving as an additional layer of ballast to our overall relations. In terms of foreign direct investment, so far it is predominantly a one-way street from America to China. This is all understandable given the developed economy status here vis-à-vis China. But in more recent years, more and more Chinese capital is interested in the U.S., particularly in the South, in states like North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, where costs of land and utilities are cheaper than in China and the labor cost is quite reasonable. This is particularly true in the context of the new economic geography theory, which posits a migration pattern of industrial manufacturing clustering.

Historically it migrated from Europe to the North America, and then to Japan and South Korea, and then to China. It has been in China for over 30 long years, such that we are starting to see a wave of outward foreign direct investment out of China, much like corporate America’s offshoring movement in the 1990s. You would like to see some of this corporate China’s offshoring capital as part of reshoring back to the U.S., as many of those companies are active participants of the global value chain networks encompassing the North American market.

Chinese capital investment in this country can also be in the area of infrastructure investment against the context of President Trump’s “Make America Great Again” campaign. This is President Trump’s hallmark campaign slogan. But so far we haven’t seen many actions and details coming out of the administration about the infrastructure buildout, other than that Wall on the southern border with Mexico. President Trump said that would be his focus in the second half of his term. We will see.

Infrastructure buildout is a great strength of Chinese companies. For those of you who have visited China, you can tell how much China has made great strides over the years. Now the government is doing this in the Belt and Road initiative. But there is much confusion, misunderstanding, misinformation and even malicious attack of the Belt and Road initiative. This is not a geopolitical play to promote sphere of influence. This is not intended for power projection. The Belt and Road initiative is truly motivated by seeking mutual commercial interests as opposed to promoting an ideology in competition with America. This point has been repeatedly emphasized by the Chinese government.

China has a huge foreign exchange reserve sitting idle here in the U.S. Bank of China and other major commercial banks from China are now flush with dollar cash and other dollar-denominated liquid assets, totaling over $3 trillion, mostly in the form of holdings in U.S. Treasury bills and bonds. This money can be readily used for Chinese investors to participate in America’s infrastructure boom. By that I mean Chinese investors can participate in those infrastructure projects as active equity investors, and maybe contractors or suppliers at the same time.

Call it belt-and-road. Call it the America-belt-and-road. It doesn’t matter, as long as China’s current account trade surplus can be somehow transformed into a capital account stock, in the form of money invested in America as permanent equity shareholders, and more importantly permanent stakeholders, of a stable and prosperous Sino-U.S. economic relationship. This could be a win-win model for both countries.

In conclusion, I am optimistic about the short-term trade negotiations, but worried about the poisonous political atmosphere in Washington, D.C., regarding China in the long run. There are those political factions in the U.S.—those on the right representing the defense industrial complex and the intelligence community, and those on the left for a phantom ideological crusade—who are bent on making China public enemy number one in the U.S. This is deplorable, to say the least.

Fortunately President Trump doesn’t seem to be part of it. A good relationship between our two countries, albeit being competitive in nature as long as it is peaceful competition, is indeed fundamentally in the American interest.

Thank you very much for the opportunity and I wish you all great success.

AMBASSADOR VASSILY A. NEBENZIA

Prospects for East-West Collaboration:

The Russian Federation’s View

NSIPS/Stuart Lewis

Theodore Strzhizhovskiy delivered the address of Ambassador Nebenzia.

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

This is the edited transcript of the address of H.E. Ambassador Vassily A. Nebenzia, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations, as presented by Counsellor Theodore Strzhizhovskiy, to the Schiller Institute conference in Morristown, N.J. on Feb. 16, 2019. A subhead has been added.

Ladies and Gentlemen, it is a real pleasure for me to be here, giving the tribute to the role which Russian-American relations play in the modern world, and to the contribution of the Schiller Institute to that relation. We prepared a statement, which I will read now.

First of all, I greet the organizers, participants and guests of this conference. The Schiller Institute is known for its valuable contribution to the understanding of international political processes, and for its development of new approaches to the global challenges. The conferences held under your auspices are respectful platforms, where the most urgent present-day issues can be discussed without politicizing and ideological clichés.

We were very saddened by the bitter news about the passing of Lyndon LaRouche, the founder and inspirer of the Schiller Institute. We would like to express our deepest condolences to Helga Zepp-LaRouche, as well as to the relatives and colleagues.

We are convinced that the paradigm of international, political, and economical intervention that he had proposed will be further developed by his apprentices and associates. [applause]

We believe that the ascent to a more human epoch is only possible when the world enjoys a more equitable, polycentric model of governance. However, recently we have become witnesses of the attempts to shatter the world security architecture, substitute agreed universal norms by some rules-based order, where rules are invented, depending on the geopolitical interest of concrete countries. Nonetheless, dangerous for the global stability is the striving of the governments of some countries to unilaterally impose their will on the global community, or on specific sovereign states, or even to interfere in their domestic affairs. In the same light, we should view the use of sanctions as a tool to execute pressure and to punish the countries that implement an independent policy.

Russia Between West and East

Russia is proud to be located between West and East. Historically, we have been implementing multitask foreign policy and developing relations with other countries in the spirit of mutual respect. Russia comprehensively helps to search for, based on international law, collective decisions to the global problems which all the countries face today. We constructively engage in the activities of the UN and Group of 20, to contribute to the relevant forms of interaction, for example, the Collective Security Treaty Organization, the Eurasian Economic Union, the Commonwealth of Independent States, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the BRICS.

One of the conceptual pillars of developing this sort of cooperation was proposed by President Putin in his initiative called, the “Greater Eurasian Partnership.” It would bring together member states of the Eurasian Economic Union, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Probably one day, it would also encompass the European Union.

The previous year was marked by a number of significant steps to implement this project: The Eurasian Economic Commission and ASEAN signed a Memorandum of Understanding which was crucial for the extension of the geography and economy of the Eurasian Partnership. Adoption of the declaration on further development in the integrational process in the Eurasian Economic Union made it possible to extend the establishment of common markets, and to add to it such areas of cooperation as education, research, health care, and trade. The Eurasian Economic Union and Chinese initiative, the One Belt, One Road, joined the integration and transportation projects on the contractual and legal basis of the agreement on trade and economic cooperation.

Bilateral cooperation of Russia and China also takes on a global dimension. Our effective foreign policy coordination, including the UN platform, has become a significant factor of stabilization in global policy.

We are also committed to fostering our relations with another privileged strategic partner: India. This commitment was reiterated in the joint declaration “Russia-India: Enduring Partnership in a Changing World,” adopted at the bilateral summit in October of last year.

We cannot but mention an unofficial summit, Russia-India-China, that took place in December 2018 in Buenos Aires after a 12-year pause.

Relations between Russia and the U.S. are also crucially important for global stability, because we are two states, major nuclear powers and UN Security Council permanent members. We face shared challenges: international terrorism, military and humanitarian crises, drug trafficking, transnational crime, and others. The success of our joint efforts of these and many other tracks is that both Moscow and Washington are interested in what is needed in the sustainable development of all countries. Russia understands the increased responsibility of both states for global peace and security. We have repeatedly expressed our readiness to normalize the relations between our countries. We hope that systemic political dialogue with our American partners, based on mutual respect and consideration of each other’s national interests, will be resumed.

We are convinced that the present-day world has no alternative to cooperation and the merging of potentials. Only this path may lead to the ascent to a more human epoch.

We wish for this conference to be creative, and to contribute to mutual trust and confidence of global affairs. We wish you every success and hope we will have meaningful discussions.

Thank you. [applause]

WILLIAM BINNEY

There Is No Such Thing as

Artificial Intelligence

EIRNS/Stuart Lewis

William Binney

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

This is the edited transcript of an address by William Binney to the Schiller Institute conference in Morristown, N.J. on Feb. 16, 2019. Mr. Binney was Senior Technical Director at the National Security Agency (NSA), until he resigned—on October 31, 2001 after 34 years at NSA—to expose the fraud and corruption there. He is currently a member of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

Thank you! It’s a pleasure to be here and talk to you today about artificial intelligence (AI), actually, and I really want to address some of the latest developments we’ve had with Russiagate, the Democratic National Committee emails from Wiki Leaks, plus some of the Guccifer 2.0 fabrications and things of that nature.

Artificial Intelligence Is

Not Artificial

But first I wanted to say that this idea, the concept of artificial intelligence, has been around for a long time. I first ran across it in the 1970s, and I was saying, “Well what is this?” And I kept thinking about it, and I said, “This doesn’t make any sense. There’s nothing artificial here.” Because what they’re doing basically is capturing the thought process of humans, and formalizing it in a set of code, so they can execute that electronically and do it a lot faster than humans. But the point is, there’s nothing that isn’t known by humans or input into the machine by humans, to replicate what humans do. So, it’s not a question of something just being artificial. It’s really tangible: It’s the capture of the thought process of humans.

A case in point. When I was working there, at one time there was a small change—we won’t talk about what the change was—but people said at the time, “Well, we have all this programming going on, let’s just take all this data, throw it in the computer, and the computer will tell us what the answer is.” This is the top thinking of NSA people, OK? So, you have to understand, they’re much like the KGB. [laughter] That went on for a couple of weeks; they kept throwing the data in, but nothing came out. Surprise, surprise!

Emotional, or Professional?

After a while I got kind of upset about this whole process and I said, “Well, now I’ll take my pencils and solve it.” So, that’s exactly what I did; I took two other people, and we sat down with pencils and paper, solved the problem, put the solution into the computer so it would operate electronically, capturing the thinking process. Then the whole business worked, and we got the answers. It’s the idea though, that this is kind of what people are doing; they’re distorting the thinking process here in the United States. The whole process is being distorted; it’s becoming more what some would call political. I think it’s more like emotional; it’s a shift to emotion as a basis for thought, as opposed to discipline and professionalism.

I take the case in point: the DNC emails that WikiLeaks had. There has been evidence there that the data was downloaded to a storage device. That had been present in that data all along; but nobody had looked at it until we took a look at it—some of our people who are associated with our research, looked at this, and they said, “Hey! Look at all these last modified timings all ending in even numbers.” Well, the random probability of that happening is one in two for every time it occurs; it could be either even or odd. So, the whole idea is the probability. We looked at 500 of these, and the probability of all 500 ending in an even digit is one in two to the 500th power. I reduced it to Base 10, because people think in Base 10 instead of Base 2, so I said that’s one in ten to the 150th power. I called it an “infinitesimal of higher order,” and somebody changed that to “infinitely small” or something.

But the idea is: the discipline of looking at data to see what the consistencies are in the data, and to figure out what the chances are of that randomly happening, using a disciplined thought process, instead of emotion. “I hate Trump, so therefore, he did it.” That’s what the mainstream media does.

I came out with the Guccifer 2.0, and we could prove in a court of law that this guy was fabricating the data. First of all, the data he put out there, it was his big mistake. It’s hard to make something look legitimate, if you’re really doing something nefarious and you try to put data out for people to look at: “See, here. I’ve got the evidence; this is what I did.” It really gets pretty hard to make it to the point where people would be convinced, especially if you have people like us looking at it, because we will tear every bit apart. We just like to know what the real truth is, not the emotion.

We know what the emotion is: nobody likes Trump. They want to get rid of him, and it’s a conspiracy to do that. We had a soft coup from the Department of Justice and the FBI; that’s been clear for a long time. Plus, I know some of these people, and they’re really not very nice people—let’s put it that way. I had an axiom when I was working at NSA: “If a politician opens his mouth and talks, there’s an 80% chance they’re lying. If a bureaucrat does it, it’s 90%.”

YouTube

James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, under questioning by members of the Senate, blatantly lied, denying that the NSA collects data on millions of Americans.

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

Case in point: DNI James Clapper, or the NSA Director, Keith Alexander, or any number of them who have been up there. By the way, they’ve not been charged with anything, have they? And yet, Roger Stone gets—what did he do? He was in for a five-hour interview. I looked at it this way: If you’re in for an interview with the FBI for five hours, they’re going to talk about a lot of things, and you have to have everything exactly right. Otherwise, they could charge you with lying. Who could actually tell everything correctly in a five-hour interview? You’re going to make a mistake somewhere. But they’re charging him; they’re not doing it with FBI Director McCabe or any of the other people in the DOJ or the FBI, let alone Hillary Clinton or any of the people with her; or all that mishandling of classified material by those people.

DNC Emails Leaked, not Hacked

Going back to our investigation, our guys saw this even-numbered pattern in the last-modified-time field. It turns out that’s a property of the FAT format (file allocation table format), where you’re reading data to a storage facility—that means fundamentally devices like a thumb drive or some kind of CD-ROM, something like that—reading it for storage. So, it’s kind of indexing at the same time; then it modifies the time to the nearest even second. So, that implied that this data—these are the DNC emails from late May, and it’s WikiLeaks data, WikiLeaks posted this—so, in looking at the WikiLeaks data that they had, it has evidence of reading to a storage device, which further implies that it wasn’t hacked, it was transported by physical means. That was with the DNC data.

That says that [Special Counsel Robert] Mueller’s indictment is kind of in jeopardy, because he no longer can claim hacking. He has to now prove that the download did not occur at the DNC network. Otherwise, any smart lawyer would say that there’s obviously evidence here of a download to a storage device. “Where was that, and who did it, and why are you claiming it’s the Russians, instead of somebody else?” [laughter]

Corruption at the Top

I’m just after the truth here; I think these people will lie through their teeth to get anything they want. Their whole objective is to achieve their emotional end, and they’ll do it any way they can. I think the evidence is pretty much showing that. Look at what they’re doing to Roger Stone and all the other people. They’re going back and interrogating them, and if they don’t tell the truth, they get charged with telling a lie to the FBI.

In our case—the NSA whistleblowers case—the FBI lied to the court to get an indictment on us. They also lied in the indictment. And they also lied in the case of the Christopher Steele dossier. They lied to the FISA court to get one, and the FISA court has known this all along. It was back in August of 2002 that they discovered the FBI had lied to them in getting 75 warrants; so this is a long-standing, well-known problem that these people lie through their teeth to get anything they want. Look at the business of the National Security letters. They lie about that, too. They say this is in the Constitution. Well, it isn’t. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals took it on and said what the FBI was doing was unconstitutional. So the FBI dropped it right away because they didn’t want it to go any further; if it went to the Supreme Court, the whole nation would know it was unconstitutional. So, they can still issue national security letters and people tend to abide by them and say, “Hey, this must be right.” Well, it’s wrong; it’s unconstitutional. It’s already been in the courts.

It’s the same thing about the lying and getting up the emotions; this is how they’re twisting thought. The whole concept goes back to the Sophists, the School of Sophism in ancient Greece. So, this is nothing new. You take many different people from different directions and you have them all say the same thing over and over again. What that means is, people receiving that barrage say, “Gee! This must be true, everybody is saying it.” Whereas people who are in positions of power—like in the House or the Senate or various other places, FBI themselves—I mean, they’ll say anything. At any rate, the whole idea is that when you say things like that over and over again, the repetition gets to people. After a while, they simply accept it.

It was Adolf Hitler who said, “If you’re going to tell a lie, tell a big one, and tell it often until it’s believed.” Then there was Goebbels who said, “If you’ve done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear.” Then we get Section 1021 of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) saying that the President can declare anybody a terrorist threat and imprison them and give them no due process at all, and keep them indefinitely. That’s also Special Order 48, issued by the Nazis in 1933, after the Reichstag Fire; that’s how they got rid of all their political enemies and anybody else they didn’t like.

YouTube

Gen. Michael Hayden, questioned by a reporter in 2013, revealed that he did not know, or lied about, the 4th Amendment requirement that there be“probable cause” before eavesdropping on Americans.

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

The Change in the Thought Process

So, this is a trend that I saw coming right when Director Michael Hayden started to introduce the process at NSA; it was very clear that this was a totalitarian process, and he started that. It was all done under the emotional sense of “we have to stop another 9/11” when we could have stopped it anyway, but didn’t.

That’s basically the thought process that happened with the DNC emails, which really were the issue. This is what they’ve been claiming all along was taken by the Russians and given to WikiLeaks. They can’t even show anything going to WikiLeaks. I would also point out that Julian Assange in the Ecuadoran Embassy in London is watched like a hawk from all different directions. If he yells out the window, they know it. And all of the people that he knows are watched also like a hawk. Everything they do on the Internet, or phone network, or anything electronic, is watched. So, anybody giving data to them would be seen; yet there’s no evidence of anybody getting it to them.

Top-secret order of the FISA court which ordered Verizon Business Communications to hand over to the National Security Agency (NSA), on a daily basis, the telephone numbers, times, and caller locations of every telephone call made in the United States

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

My point here is this change of thinking that’s been going on, in destroying the discipline of thought, including labelling things as artificial when they’re not. It’s just a continuing process of degenerating really the progress of civilization through thinking new things, new items, new ways of achieving things, new ways of doing things. That was basically going on in the East German State Security Service (Stasi) when they had this bulk monitoring of their people. They did it on paper, though; we have it in electronic form, digital form, so it’s much easier to get to. And it’s easier to manipulate, change, and modify; those are things they can also do with this. They tried a little bit, did that with us.

Fortunately, I was watching them, and I caught them at it. I had the goods on them. I keep telling them, “Let’s go to court! I’ll bring all this stuff up and we can address everything.” I’ve got filed affidavits in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals—also the Ninth—talking about the unconstitutional spying on U.S. citizens. I used some of the Snowden material as exhibits. I invented half this crap [used at NSA], so I’m ready to testify in court. The government is trying to keep me out. This has only been going on for two years now, and about six years with the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). But the government’s afraid of discussing this in open court, because they know what they’re doing is unconstitutional.

The Crime of Bulk Acquisition of Data

We’re getting progress I think in Europe. The Austrian government has started to say things like “Well, this bulk acquisition is. . . .”—the senior courts in Austria have ruled it unconstitutional. The entire Parliament has voted down bulk acquisition, and a bill is attempted to be passed there in Austria. So, that was the first country in Europe that started to go and do the right thing. Now, the Germans have come out and said Facebook, Amazon, all these other companies that are taking data on people and accumulating it to advertise to them and things like that, is now illegal; that process can’t be used that way. You can’t sell that data.

nsa.gov

Southern end of the NSA’s one million square-foot Bluffdale, Utah “massive data repository” data center facility in October 2013.

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

The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in Europe also says that the data held by these third party companies, like Facebook and Google, belongs to the person who originated it. That means the individual European citizen owns his data, wherever it is. If those companies want to transfer that data or share it with anybody—including with the U.S. government—they have to get the permission of that person. They’ve been violating that all along.

My argument in Europe has always been that the weak Achilles’ heel in this entire bulk acquisition and spying is the companies doing it and assisting the government. You can try to sue the government, but they’ll drag it out for decades until you die. That’s what they’re hoping with me, I think. But I’m going to be there until the end. This is in my view a war. When the FBI raided me at my home in 2007, that started the war; so now it takes two people to end the war, and I’m not giving up yet. [applause]

Guccifer 2.0 Is a Total Fabrication

Coming back to what we were doing with Guccifer 2.0’s data, which he came out and said it was hacked from Russia— [Binney turns to Theodore Strzhizhovskiy, sitting next to him] You guys are the bad guys, OK?

Theodore Strzhizhovskiy: I must thank the organizers of this conference for their brilliant sense of humor to put William Binney and me together on this podium. But, let me underline one thing: The Russian Federation didn’t interfere into William’s speech process. [laughter]

Binney: You’re allowing me to have free speech, that’s true.

But at any rate, with the Guccifer 2.0 data, we were looking at that also. I was doing this with Duncan Campbell in the U.K., and it turned out that the highest transfer speed for that download—we went through and calculated all the speeds for every file transferred—was 49.1 megabytes—bytes, not bits—per second. That’s pretty fast for a general transfer of data across the Atlantic using the World Wide Web. We therefore asserted that the Guccifer 2.0 data couldn’t have been transmitted across the Atlantic via the Internet.

Even inside VIPS we had groups of people who thought it could, again because the emotional effect was there. But we said, “OK, we’re going to try this.” So, I got some hacker friends in Europe and some friends over here to put a gigabyte of data out, and see how fast you can get it over there.

Actually, I worked out the formula companies are using to limit the use of their Internet, because you can’t open up to—if I had a terabyte of data to send, and if I wanted to send it all at once, I could occupy the line for a period of time, and no one else could use it. So, the companies—and I think I’ve got the right formula now—have the right to have a limitation on the amount of data that you can actually pass through the Internet. It worked out to be 0.8 megabytes [per second] for a 100 megabit line, and 1.6 megabytes for a 200 megabit line. This is from our testing. Also, 12 megabytes per second for a 1.5 gigabit line. So, that works out to be the equivalent of ten 64-kilobit phone lines; that’s the maximum you can use.

So, at least that’s consistent with all the readings we got. We tried it from Albania, Belgrade in Serbia, the Netherlands, a couple of places, and the U.K. The best we got was 12 megabytes per second between two data centers—one in New Jersey and one in London. So that meant the best we did was less than one-quarter what was necessary to transmit that 49.1 megabytes. Technically—and I like to do the technical stuff, because there’s no emotion in it—it’s just there. So, technically, that was not a hack. But the 49.1 and all the other speeds we got are compatible with a download to a thumb drive! So, all of that kind of fits, even with the Guccifer 2.0.

The Even-Number Giveaway

Then, the real kicker was, he had the data from the 5th of July and also from the 1st of September, and we looked at that, and said, “Gee, if you look only at minutes and seconds and ignore the day and the hour, those two files merge just like that, without conflict.” Now, what’s the random probability of that happening? There are nine groups over here, so I figured it was like 9 to the 60th power, something like that. So it was also a rather small number.

The point is, it’s the proof that Guccifer 2.0 was playing with the data. It’s pretty clear what he did. He took a file on one download and split it into two; then did a range change on the date and a range change on the hour in one file, and let them sit there. But if you looked only at minutes and seconds, you could see right through that, and merged the two. And so it’s a total fabrication, Guccifer 2.0.

And yet, that’s what [Deputy Attorney General Rod] Rosenstein based his indictment of the Russian GRU on. I said he was indicting spies for being spies. I said, if you take the consequence of what he’s doing, we [the U.S.] have spies who do more spying than any other spies. So, does that mean the rest of the world is going to indict our spies for being spies? This is insane. These people need to get a brain down there at the DOJ. Their brains are artificial, that’s right.

That just shows the fabrications involved in Guccifer 2.0, and basically, downloading what the DNC did itself, says that all this has just been a manufactured episode from the beginning.

Something Positive

Dennis Speed is requiring me to say something positive, so I’ll say something positive. I should say this, though, because we are also doing something positive. We’re devising routines—not artificial, of course—but doing routines that will work out very large-scale problems like Medicare and Medicaid fraud, things of that nature, without violating anybody’s privacy.

And also, we have a policy now of building in software that nobody knows about, to combat evil at the top. We’re assuming, since everything is basically a double-edged sword—it can be used for good or bad, as we experienced with the spying—so we need to build things in that we don’t document and nobody knows about, unless they go through every line of code that executable. So, that’s going to be a real trip for them to do that. The whole idea is that if somebody in the top decides they want to do something evil, then this software will pick it up and automatically alert everybody, and they won’t even know what happened.

So, that’s the whole idea, to do that in a positive way so you can actually succeed at doing things like stopping terrorists or things like that. Things that aren’t being done now because they’re looking at too much data, and they don’t have enough analysts to look at the data to find the threat coming. So, it’s just pathetic what they’re doing. It’s the change of the thought process making it more political, more emotional, and not being disciplined and structured. So, that’s the positive side.

Speed: I think the exchange that went on between you and Mr. Strzhizhovskiy was quite positive as well. [applause]

JASON ROSS

The Urgent Need

for a New Paradigm in Africa

EIRNS/Stuart Lewis

Jason Ross

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

This is the presentation of Jason Ross to the Schiller Institute conference in Morristown, N.J. on Feb. 16, 2019. Ross is co-author of the Schiller Institute report, Extending the New Silk Road to West Asia and Africa.

It’s a great honor to be here to speak to this wonderful event. I’m glad so many people are here; it seems we’ll have to get a bigger room next time, which is really good news.

What I want to discuss today is the urgent need for a New Paradigm in the world, using Africa as a case study. And I want to talk specifically about Lyndon LaRouche’s proposal for a New Bretton Woods conference as the way to create a New Paradigm and institute a new order of economic relations among nations in the globe: something that’s absolutely needed at present.

Figure 1

NASA

The Earth at night: 20% of the world’s population has no access to electricity.

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

If we take a look at the world as a whole, just looking at it at night provides a very good way to get a sense of its state of economic development. Places that are dark at night, are dark because there’s no electricity. Looking at this map, [Figure 1] it’s easy to identify what some of these places are: either due to a lack of development, or due to just a lack of people. So, some of these areas—for example, Australia, there’s just not a lot of people there. Africa, not a lot of development, compared to what it should be. You can look at the United States, and see the difference in land use. [Audience member: “Where’s Canada?”] Canada? It looks like Canada is about a 60-mile sliver north of the United States.

So, what’s going to change this? How are we going to make the world what it ought to be? The African Union (AU) has adopted what it calls Agenda 2063; the AU adopted this in 2013 as a 50-year proposal for the development of the African continent. One of the proposals is for a Trans-African Highway network. Completing this project will be a great transformative step to integrating the economies of Africa.

Figure 2

Congo River

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

Power is another absolute essential for development. [Figure 2] Look at the Congo River, passing through the Democratic Republic of the Congo. And near where it enters the Atlantic Ocean is the most perfect location for hydropower on the planet. A very steep drop of a very huge river—the Congo is second only to the Amazon in terms of its flow out to the ocean. It’s a huge river and a wonderful place to make 40,000 MW of hydropower: good, clean, non-polluting hydropower. So, this proposed Grand Inga hydropower facility, which has not been built yet, was dropped by the World Bank as being environmentally and otherwise irresponsible a few years ago.

This is just one example of what we heard in that clip from LaRouche earlier, speaking in Germany when he was 90, about the Green policy being a suicide policy. It’s not only a suicide policy, it’s also used as a homicide policy, as a new form of colonialism. This is, I think, a powerful example of that.

Africa-China Relations Against Colonialism

In contrast, is the really exciting development of relations between China and the nations of Africa. Every three years, the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation meets, alternating between China and the capital of an African nation. At the last meeting, which was held in 2018, the meeting was in Beijing, and in 2021 it will be held in Senegal. What China has been doing with its cooperation with Africa, has been making available large amounts of credit for the kinds of projects that just make sense: rail lines, power systems, water systems, transportation, road networks, industrial parks—these kinds of significant investments.

This is not charity; this is not a case of somebody saying “We’re going to step up to the plate and donate to those poor Africans who can’t help themselves.” That’s not the case. The United States is a bigger donor to Africa than is China. But I think if you speak to many African nations in terms of which nation is doing more at present to provide a long-term future, it’s not aid that lasts for a year; it’s taking the lid off and saying, “We’re going to develop a full economy here, not perpetually slightly alleviate poverty; that’s not a future.”

Figure 3a

Figure 3b

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

Let’s look at the numbers on this. The United States has 0.3 billion people, Africa has 1.2 billion people, and China has 1.4 billion people. Africa and China have a similar number of people, despite Africa being at least three times larger as a continent than China. Regarding energy use, [Figure 3a] the U.S. and China use a similar amount of energy. China, however, has four times the population. When we look at it on a per capita basis, [Figure 3b] here you have a sense of how much energy is available per person. Very quick, very simple numbers, but you can see that there is a massive deficit to be overcome. When this is done, the benefits will be enormous.

Currently, transportation among nations in Africa, for example, is at such a poor level that there is very little trade among Africa nations. Most trade by any African nation is not with its neighbors, it’s with countries outside the continent.

Figure 4a

Railways, Passengers Carried

(million passenger-km)

Figure 4b

Railways, Goods Transported

(million ton-km)

Figure 4c

Improved Water Source

(% of population with access)

Source: World Bank

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

If the road and rail networks are developed, you can see the estimates for, in many places, ten times the trade flowing; the potential is all there. It’s huge, and it needs to happen. This [Figure 4a] is a chart of passenger rail use by country, color-coded; freight rail use by country, color-coded [Figure 4b]. Now look at access to improved water [Figure 4c]. There’s a lot to be done. Now, what is preventing this? Although 50-something years ago, the African nations by and large achieved official independence, full economic independence has not occurred, because colonialism has continued, although in other forms. And that colonialism is not the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative. It’s much more the British.

Take for example the Heads of Government Meeting of the British Commonwealth, a ridiculous institution. Behind the creepy Queen at these meetings, are the leaders of powerful countries with many people—President Buhari of Nigeria, Prime Minister Modi of India—over a billion people. There’s only about 60 million people in England. Why does this institution even exist? Why do people willingly go to grovel before the Queen and say they’re willing to essentially continue the old colonial system?

What Is American Policy?

Let’s look back at another colony and how it reacted to the British system. Our United States Declaration of Independence, in setting out the causes for which we declared our independence from Britain, said at the end, “Let the facts be presented to a candid world.” What was the first of those facts? Don’t let the automobile license plates in Washington, D.C. fool you, it was not taxation without representation; it was “He [King George III] has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.” The number one item on the Declaration of Independence—the common good is not being promoted; that there is a refusal to allow the promotion of the common good.

Compare that with National Security Study Memorandum 200, authored under Henry Kissinger in 1974, which stated, for about two dozen countries in the world, that the growth of their populations represented a threat to U.S. strategic interests. Because it would be more difficult, essentially, to get materials from countries that were developing and prosperous than countries that are disarrayed and poor.

Compare this to when the British ran their official empire. Consider India, for example. Some people say that at least Britain helped develop India, building railroads, and so forth. No, Britain ruined India. India was one of the world’s leading manufacturers of cloth, for example, and had a major ship-building industry, which was destroyed by the British. Empire destroys the economic potential of its colonies, and that is the reason that development has been deliberately held back in the world.

In a sense, what China is doing now with the tremendously important Belt and Road Initiative—keeping in mind its origins and the promotion of the New Silk Road, the World Land-Bridge by the Schiller Institute, by Lyndon and Helga LaRouche for decades—represents something which is very sensible in a certain way: Cooperate with others to develop together. The whole idea of the Thucydides Trap, which Professor Gong referenced, depends on the idea that the nations that are going to compete with each other, both have the view of themselves as existing to be powers, as having their interest in essentially being an empire or holding dominion.

If that’s not the relation among nations—if another’s rise is not your loss—then there is no reason to look at the world like a mischievous child who sees somebody else getting the candy and then getting mad at them. We can all grow together.

Figure 5

Transaqua

Bonifica

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

Refilling Lake Chad with Transaqua

I want to give one example now, very briefly, of a specific project in Africa, and look at how it is moving forward; and then briefly conclude with what this means for the world as whole.

Again, this is an example where the World Bank “refused its Assent” to financing something “the most wholesome and necessary for the public good”: like the dropping of support for the Grand Inga Dam. The example I want to take up is Lake Chad.

For those who know the geography, Lake Chad is an interior lake in Africa. Water that comes into the lake doesn’t leave; it just evaporates or filters through the ground, but it doesn’t flow out to the ocean. There’s not enough incoming water in the basin to sustain this lake. The lake’s size has both fluctuated significantly and overall shrunk dramatically from the mid-1970s. Over the last 40 years, the lake has lost 90% of its water, while the population around it has increased several times. There are now 30-40 million people now essentially economically dependent on this lake in various ways, and the lake is disappearing.

What is to be done? There is a proposal that has been made for decades, and has been promoted by the LaRouche movement. [Figure 5] It was initiated by an Italian company, Bonifica, which proposed to take part of the water that goes into the Congo River—again, the second-largest flow rate in the world, plenty of water [Figure 6]. Take 8% of that water, and through a series of dams upstream, create a channel where the water could flow by gravity. This could refill the lake; you could make hydroelectricity; you could make power at each of several dams. You would have a navigable channel for barges to transport things; you could build a road along it. It’s an excellent idea.

Figure 6

Congo-Chari Rivers’ Catchment Basins

Bonifica

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

This is a workable and brilliant plan that has been in consideration for decades. But just recently, in the past couple of years, tremendous steps forward have been made, again, in part because of China. In December 2016, PowerChina and Bonifica both signed agreements to do more work on the feasibility. In February 2018 at the Lake Chad Basin Commission meeting in Abuja, Nigeria, the assembled countries said this is the way we’re going to go. Water transfer is the only way to save this lake. That’s what people on the ground say. What do Western donor countries, the ones giving money to slightly alleviate the poverty, say? They don’t even want to talk about this. They’ll hold a meeting and talk about more efficiently identifying people at risk of starvation, but they will not talk about refilling the lake. It’s simply not on their agenda.

So, what’s needed is the United States, Russia, China, India to come together and call for another conference like that held in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire at the conclusion of World War II. At that conference was put in place a stable financial system that, overall, worked for decades. Roosevelt had the goal that, after World War II, all colonies would be free. He wanted to defeat not only the Nazi and Japanese attempts at colonization, but also the British Empire and the French Empire.

If the four countries identified by LaRouche (U.S., Russia, China, and India) come together to institute a new system on the planet today, we can grow out of the frankly adolescent oligarchical viewpoint, which says “another’s rise is my loss,” and recognize that we have shared human dreams for development; and that if we work together, we truly will all benefit. And we also will be much happier.

Thank you.

Visit action.larouchepac.com

creative commons

DENNIS SMALL

Justice for the World: Why Donald Trump Must Exonerate Lyndon LaRouche Now

EIRNS/Stuart Lewis

Dennis Small

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

These are the remarks of Dennis Small, Ibero-American Desk editor of Executive Intelligence Review, to the Schiller Institute conference in Morristown, N.J., on Feb. 16, 2019. This is the speech as prepared for delivery, combined with additional material added at the time of delivery. Subheads have been added.

As the caboose of this panel, my remarks were designed to be short and they will be. I do want to say that the remarks I crafted for this presentation were done before Lyndon LaRouche passed away and I considered whether or not modifications were required. And, I decided it was not, because what I have to say applied then, and now, to the living Lyndon LaRouche—the one who is alive today.

Thirty years and three weeks ago, on January 27, 1989, Lyndon LaRouche was incarcerated to serve a fifteen-year sentence. He was released on probation after serving five years in federal prison, for crimes which he never committed, and which the corrupt prosecution knew perfectly well that he had not committed. A number of his associates were also sentenced to terms ranging up to 77 years, in a series of related federal and state prosecutions.

The intention of the British Empire and their American lickspittles who carried out that legal atrocity—which involved, in the memorable words of LaRouche’s appeal lawyer and former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, “a broader range of deliberate and systematic misconduct and abuse of power over a longer period of time in an effort to destroy a political movement and leader, than any other federal prosecution in my time or to my knowledge”—the intention was to kill LaRouche, to break and bankrupt his political movement, and to bury LaRouche’s ideas forever. They failed on all counts.

But what they did succeed in doing was to deprive America and the world of their most illustrious statesman and economist, the adoption of whose policies would have made the world an entirely different place today. The greatest travesty of justice was the one done against the peoples and the nations of the planet, and against the very concept of Man which has been the central commitment of LaRouche’s life’s work. It is that injustice which must now be undone if the planet is to survive.

Justice

Justice for the man means justice for his ideas. As LaRouche has frequently noted, great revolutionary discoveries don’t float anonymously in abstract space; they are associated with individual human beings—Cusa, Leibniz, Hamilton, LaRouche. They are the living soul of those personalities. As Cusa put it: “Mind is the same as the soul of a human being. Mind is a living substance. Its function in this body is to give it life, and because of this it is called soul. Mind is a substantial form or power.”

In his final public speech before his December 16, 1988 conviction, delivered scarcely one week earlier to a Food for Peace conference in Chicago, LaRouche was unswerving:

We’re speaking of the future of hundreds of billions of unborn souls, without whose success our lives mean nothing. If we fight so, if we fight with love of humanity, by thinking especially of those hundreds of billions of souls waiting to be born, and thinking also of those whose martyrdom and other sacrifice gave us what was our potential and our debt to them, respecting what we pass on to the future [we then] think of our lives not as things which are lived for pleasure in and of themselves, but as an opportunity to fulfill a purpose, a purpose which is reflected in what we bequeath to those hundreds of billions of souls waiting to be born, in their condition.

With that in mind, consider what the Earth’s Next 30 Years would have been like had LaRouche’s frame-up been defeated back in 1988.

The Damage

• Because LaRouche’s policies for replacing the deadly looting of Wall Street and the City of London—with a just New World Economic Order of universal, high tech development—were not implemented, hundreds of millions of people around the world remained in poverty and tens of millions perished unnecessarily. It has only been with China’s recent adoption of policies very similar to those proposed by LaRouche up to fifty years ago, that the genocide has stopped in at least large parts of the planet.

• Because LaRouche’s SDI policy, as adopted and proposed by President Ronald Reagan in 1983, was sabotaged and not carried out, the world today teeters at the edge of thermonuclear confrontation. Only a return to LaRouche’s original design of the SDI ballistic missile defense system, and today’s SDE, or Strategic Defense of the Earth—based on new physical principles and cooperation with Russia and China, not against them—only that can now pull us back from the brink.

• Because LaRouche’s proposal for cooperation between East and West after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the reunification of Germany—famously forecast by LaRouche in October 1988—was rejected, and LaRouche was hauled off to jail scarcely three months later, Russia was ravaged and the West looted under Thatcher, Bush and Mitterrand. And a wave of permanent wars was unleashed, which is with us still today.

• Because LaRouche’s proposed war on drugs against London’s Dope, Inc. banking apparatus was never implemented, a drug epidemic today is poisoning our nation and the world.

• Because a corrupt FBI/Department of Justice apparatus, under British intelligence direction, got away with their legal atrocity against LaRouche, that same apparatus—in fact, many of the same individual players—are now deployed to carry out a de facto coup d’état against the President of the United States, who has himself vowed to put an end to the endless wars.

• And because LaRouche’s policies for generating a new Renaissance of classical culture and science were swept aside, we now stare into the pit of hell of a New Dark Age that is engulfing our youth in particular.

All of LaRouche’s policies flow from his abiding love of truth, love of humanity and love of a good fight.

Schiller Institute

Hundreds of officials and prominent individuals around the world signed an Open Letter to Bill Clinton, President of the United States, calling for the exoneration of Lyndon LaRouche, published in the New Federalist, the Washington Post, and Roll Call in Sept., 1998.

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

Exonerate Him!

In a press conference held right after his conviction, LaRouche himself best summarized what was at stake:

My function is not to gain personal prestige for myself. I never cared for it, I never sought money, I never sought personal prestige. I have other things that are important to me, and that keep me happy. For example, tomorrow, I’m having a scientific seminar and I’m going to be very happy with that. My function is the service I have performed for the United States and civilization.

And in his allocution before Judge Albert Bryan prior to sentencing on Jan. 27, 1989, LaRouche began by stating: “The Court I am sure is not surprised that I know myself to be innocent of any wrongdoing in this matter. And the Court I think would also not be surprised to know that I view the jury’s verdict as equivalent to a presentment repealing or proposing to repeal the law of gravity in respect to the facts.” After then, pointing the finger directly at the British intelligence establishment that had ordered the railroad against him, LaRouche concluded with remarks that remain our clarion call today as we urge President Trump to at last exonerate Lyndon LaRouche:

This group of trials by shotgun methods is an attempt to eliminate me from the political scene. This has already done great damage to the United States. The time has come that this evil and reckless prosecution be brought to a halt before much greater damage is done to our United States.

The time, indeed, has come.

And I would like to conclude with a proposal, which I have discussed with Helga over the last day or two. Trying to think about what the British Empire would most fear, I think what we have to do, is publish the collected works of Lyndon LaRouche, now!

[The proposal was received with a standing ovation.]

After the conference, go home, clear off an entire bookshelf, not just one shelf, but probably the entire bookshelf. I don’t know how long and how big this is going to be, but whatever it is, it has to be done. And I suggest that among the many resolutions that come from within ourselves at this conference, that one of them be this. Because the way to do justice to LaRouche, is make sure that the ideas and the passion around which he built his life, and which he educated us to be able to carry out in his physical absence, but in the presence of his soul, of his mind, that we now carry that forward with the kind of commitment and passion which they require to achieve success.

From the Q&A Session of Panel I

DENNIS SPEED, MODERATOR

Let Us Create a New, More Human Epoch

Panel I of the Feb. 16, 2019 Schiller Institute conference, in Morristown, N.J., concluded with a question and answer session moderated by Dennis Speed, Northeast Coordinator of the U.S. Schiller Institute. A transcript of selections from the question and answer session follows.

EIRNS/Stuart Lewis

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

Dennis Speed: We’re now in our question and answer session. Please announce who you are.

Question: My name is Alex from the great state of Massachusetts, but originally from the Southern Cameroons in West Africa.

I want to call attention to the ongoing genocide happening in Southern Cameroon as we speak. There are thousands of people, over 300,000, who are internally displaced, in bushes, some in foreign countries, some inside trench holes, and nobody is talking about it. So, please, at the end of this little presentation, join me, so that we can, as one, as we talk about humanity, stand up and request that that genocide should stop as of today.

The British Southern Cameroons have gone through a lot of turmoil. Southern Cameroons was colonized, first by the Germans: They taught them how to drink; second, by the British: They gave them to the French as a petit cadeau from the Queen. Can you imagine? A group of people, over 8 million of them, handed to somebody in Europe as cadeau? Cadeau means “gift.” So the people of Southern Cameroons were given to the French as a gift! And today, La République du Cameroun—that came into side-by-side existence with the Republic of Southern Cameroons—it’s annexing it and killing all its people, because the people stood up and said, “You cannot annex us again.”

So I want us, as we go home, to know that this genocide is going to wipe out 8 million people if we do not act now. We did not act in Rwanda, because it was in Africa. Let’s act now, because we have a change of mind, humanity.

I would like to speak to Queen Elizabeth. Queen Elizabeth, this is time for you to do the right thing. Admit that you screwed up and correct your mistakes. Don’t take them with you to Hell, because all the [previous] British monarchs have occupied all the space. We, the young generation will forgive you if you do the right thing. Don’t take them with you as excess luggage to Hell.

My Dear People: Let us act now, before a group of humans in West Africa are extinct. Let’s not talk about Rwanda again in this century.

I yield the rest of my time to my colleague here from Southern Cameroons.

Question: I really feel so happy to be in a room filled with people who care about humanity. My name is Harriet, and I am a registered nurse in the state of Massachusetts.

The past three years have been hell—I feel like I’ve been living a double life, like I’m here, but my spirit is dead somewhere in Southern Cameroon, given what is going on, on the streets that I grew up in. Please, I would like to take this opportunity to plead with you. Innocent, vulnerable, Southern Cameroonians—women, children, unborn children are being slaughtered, daily, as we speak right here. There are many who are being slaughtered, right now.

For some reason, it seems as if the world has closed its eyes on us, but I knew as from today, that I have met this big group of loving people, I know it is going to change. Please, I do have some flyers. I cannot say this without thanking the Boston Schiller Institute family, especially Cloret and Bill. They have been a wonderful support. Thank you and thanks to the rest of the Boston family that we meet.

And the people of British Southern Cameroon will know that there are people in this world who still care about humanity. Thank you so much!

Speed: I’ll just note that Jacques Cheminade will say something later, concerning this entire matter.

Question: My name is Bob, I’m from New Jersey. I’m a fan of Mr. Binney and I have a question that he may or may not want to answer.

I’ve heard you talk in the past about [Edward] Snowden, and you never talked about him in a derogatory way, so with that as a framework, my perception of the NSA is that they’re kind of like the good guys, and my perception of the CIA is that they’re totally disjointed from the country, and it’s like they’re their own entity, not out for our interests but for their own interests whatever they may be.

I’ve been looking into Snowden. I know he was an outside contractor, and I guess he started initially with the CIA and then he leaked through the NSA. Do you think that was provoked, to make the NSA look bad, for the benefit of the CIA?

William Binney: No, I don’t think he particularly cared for the CIA, either. Most of the people at NSA, they’re good, patriotic people, doing dedicated work to try to solve problems that would eliminate people getting hurt and illegal things happening. And also threats. But there’s a certain group at NSA that’s gone down—they’ve adopted the dark side, just like [former Vice President Dick] Cheney did. You know, I call him “Darth” Cheney, because he said he was going to the “dark side,” and he took a lot of people with him, OK? And some of those people are still in positions of power.

All photos: EIRNS/Stuart Lewis

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

Question: My name is Mary Fagan. I’d like to state that I think it’s a really beautiful thing to look around us and see the diversity of humanity. In this room alone, we have every culture, economic background, coming together to fight for something. [applause]

My question has to do with this: Part of your speeches were about man’s mind being a “machine,” so to speak. And in our mind we have the input of our society around us that places those thoughts there, and the output of our own discernment of how it comes out, based mostly on maybe our emotion.

But there’s another reality, and it’s the spiritual reality. The spiritual reality enlightens the mind through the soul, and when we encourage that spiritual reality, we can do a lot of good in our country. They’re trying to remove God from everything, and every place. And yet, when we had 9/11, people said “God loves America! God loves America!” Yes, He does, but does America love God?

Does America love God? Does humanity love God?

So I think it’s very important to address this as well, when we address life and life situations. Because the soul is inspired through the grace of God. Thank you.

Dennis Small: I recommend to you an article written by LaRouche on this subject, “What Is God that Man Is in His Image?” I think it poses the issues that you’re raising, which are extremely important, but poses it from the standpoint, going back to the very first thing you said: Here we have people from different cultures, different religions, different backgrounds, different races, different countries, different theological standpoints. What is it that is discernible, knowable to man about the nature of the Creator which it is universal and discernible to all cultures, all human beings?

That’s, I think, the proper way to actually pose the question. Because our task is to make sure that the entirety of humanity, not one country, not ten countries, but that the entirety of the human species has access to that power of creative thinking, far beyond anything that a machine could ever do, completely different—incommensurable with any machine. Think of what LaRouche was saying about this. But to make that power, which is what makes man in God’s image, identifiable and knowable and reproducible.

There’s a huge amount more to be said on this. I would just recommend to you and to others here as well, to take a close look at this document of Mr. LaRouche’s.

Question: My name is Frank. I’m from New Jersey. One of the speakers this morning spoke about our escalating debt and how the course that we are on long term is non-sustainable. I think that the national debt, back when the financial crisis happened in 2008, was around $8 trillion. Now we’re at $21 or so trillion dollars.

The U.S. Constitution provides that only the United States government can create currency, yet we have what I believe to be a private bank, in the Federal Reserve Bank, which is affiliated with other world banks like the IMF and the World Bank, that seems to be creating money out of thin air, for their own benefit. And in the meantime, the taxpayers of the United States and the world, are becoming debt-slaves to this debt. A larger and larger percentage of our taxes goes to service the debt, instead of paying for food and housing and medicine, etc.

There were bumper stickers 10 or 15 years ago, that said “End the Fed.” And I was curious to know what Lyndon LaRouche’s view was, from any of the panelists, on the creation of money and debt—which is a necessary financial instrument; and what his views would have been with this escalating debt, which now actually seems to be accelerating. What are we going to do about it, in terms of the Fed and the growing debt problem, and where does this all end? Thank you.

Jacques Cheminade: Well, let me try to wrap up an answer to what has been raised. I think in all my life, my concern has been, why, faced with injustice, people don’t rise, don’t react, don’t do better? How is it that they are fooled?

And I think to understand it, there is something that I can tell you because I come from a country where there is this big fight between the colonial side and the republican side.

If you look at World War I, you had only empires fighting each other. It was not nations, they were all empires! The French Empire, the German Empire, the British Empire, of course, the main culprit, and other empires. The only country that was not an empire, was the United States, but you had Woodrow Wilson. [laughter]

The secret—I think, not so secret—of the colonial operation, is the destruction of people’s self-esteem. That means the power of the individual to connect to the power of creation—those colonial powers did, and do, everything to destroy that power in the minds of the people, repeating over and over again, “You cannot succeed, we know better, because we control the rules of the game, and you are an infant, you can’t do it”—that’s the way French treated their colonial subjects.

This thing is the same in our civilized country. It means what David Riesman referred to as the “other-directed” individual. You don’t believe any more than you can be directed by your sense of justice, you have to be subjected to the oppression. This is what I call “mutually-assured cowardice.” You become a coward.

Then, to be promoted, you have to lose your identity, you have to lose your esteem, you have to lose your moral identity, because you accept the rules of the game. Then, what comes later, is that you lose confidence in yourself, in your moral identity; you lose confidence in your neighbor, you lose confidence in other people.

If people lose confidence in the utterance of currency, of their own money, they lose confidence in themselves, and they are debased. This is what’s happening in Europe right now, and it’s happening in the whole world. The dollar is no longer an American currency, it’s a currency of the world markets and the British Empire.

So, you have the situation, where you paralyze people in diverse identities. You divide to rule, and there is no more esteem for what connects people with the laws of the universe, with natural law. It’s destroyed in a set of particular identities. And this process is being accelerated now, in the whole world.

To raise an issue, as our friends from Cameroon did, is extremely important: But it should be raised to the issues of all issues, and to move.

I was very moved, myself, by the condolence sent, which was one of ones that moved me most, by our friends in Yemen, who said that Lyndon LaRouche gave us the best of all armies, the army of ideas. And they are involved—believe me—in Yemen, in a terrible fight!

What’s happening in Yemen is one of the worst things. The French and the Americans and the British are giving everything to the Saudis to destroy Yemen, not because of Yemen in itself, not because it is under Iranian influence, but because there is, in this part of the world, a genuine insurrection for something good for humanity. So, I think this goodness of humanity, that you as an individual are not only enabled, but you can fight for it—this is, I think, what Lyn has left us as a mission, and this is, I think, how you should react to all other injustice that we see.

And our work in art, our work in music, our work in all areas of human creativity nourishes that, and people in Yemen have understood it. And, believe me, Yemen is probably one of the worst places in the world to understand it—and they do.

So, let’s follow this lesson, and fight. [applause]

EIRNS/Stuart Lewis

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

Question: This is José. I’m from the Bronx.

In American media and in politics, you often hear: “There’s not enough money for this project.” “We don’t have enough money to do this, we don’t have enough money to do that.” I ask myself: “Well, how much money does it take to fix education in the country? How much money does it take to fix the corruption in the country?”

So, this has me re-thinking, “What is money? What is the point of money?” Not having enough money to pay rent versus not having enough money to build a high-speed rail are two different things, and yet you don’t bring that up. So, what is the Chinese perspective on money? And what should it be?

John Gong: I think in the U.S. it is kind of regrettable that we spend a lot of money on studying, looking into environmental impacts, into investigating the feasibilities, a lot of money spent on this, instead of money spent on concrete and steel. There’s a great article published in the Washington Post some time ago by George Will, talking about how the litigious society of this country has been destroying infrastructure investment. Just look at how much money’s [been] spent on that high-speed railroad between San Francisco and Los Angeles: Billions and billions of dollars have been being spent on this for I think over a decade now, and not an inch of railroad has been built so far. [laughter] This testifies to the problem I think, in this country.

In China, it’s very different. I’ll just give you one example: About how much time does it actually take to build a railroad, physically from the time of breaking ground, to when the trains are running and carrying passengers? Between Shanghai and Beijing, which is probably the busiest railroad in the world, in terms of traffic carried, it took two years! It took just two years to build this railroad.

In the United States? Lawsuits go all the way to the Supreme Court, taking decades to resolve. In China, the government will provide a [compensation] package [to the property holder] based on the average pricing in the nearby real estate prices, and that’s it. Is it fair? Is it just? Well, you know, to some people, it might not be fair, and it might not be just. But a country cannot be held back by a small group of people arguing over their property values.

This is a trade-off between efficiency and liberalism, or a justice system, but who is preventing it here, right? This is a very good question.

So I think there’s a fundamental difference. When the American side criticizes the Chinese government for being non-liberal, for not going through the due process, for not having comprehensive studies about the real impact about all these infrastructure projects—back in China, we don’t have the time to argue about these things. I think that pretty much summarizes my answer. Thank you very much!

Small: That’s good, that’s good. How much money does it take to do that? Nothing! It doesn’t take money. Money is like artificial intelligence. Its purpose is to insist on the lie that science and morality are separate: That’s the purpose, to put a monetary value on things—as LaRouche was fond of saying, a million dollars for a whorehouse and a million dollars for a steel mill, well, if it’s all dollars, what’s the difference? Well, there is a difference!

And the whole idea of quantifying and measuring things in terms of money, as if that were actually a metric of the economy, it’s not just inaccurate and wrong, it is fundamentally immoral! How can you look around the world and not do something? It’s what Jacques was just saying: How can you tolerate the kinds of things that are going on, and say, “Well, that’s what the market is saying.”

Maybe I’ll state a disagreement with some of the views of some other people on this panel, maybe not—but it is not the case that China is the second economy in the world. China is the first economy, because you cannot measure an economy competently with GDP. The United States is not the most powerful economy in the world. Measure it in terms of Lyn’s science of physical economy. Look at directionality, look at intention, look at morality. Look at what’s happened with poverty.

To resolve this issue, and to actually answer all the questions, on the fundamental, underlying issue of the unity of science and morality, is what’s actually posed. You don’t need money. You need intention. You need science, you need physical productivity. And that springs from the same source of morality: human creativity. The reason we are moral, or have the potential to be moral, is because we are creative, or have the potential to be creative.

Cheminade: I just wanted to bring up a quote from Lyndon LaRouche: “Money is an idiot! People who believe it, are at best idiots, at worst, traitors.” [laughter] And that’s the truth with money. Money is something you can create; it’s a potential. And you create the basis, if you create money credit, for the reimbursement. You create the basis for a platform in the future, which permits you to reimburse the credit that you have generated. This is Hamiltonian economics. We wrote a lot of papers on that, that should be read and thought about.

The key, as Dennis said, is intention, direction, and who controls the utterance of credit with what intention and toward what direction. And then, absolutely, money should be superseded by the moral intent, and the physical economy of the future corresponding to this moral intent. [applause]

William Binney: I had a simple solution for the arguing bureaucrats: I never told them what I was doing. [laughter] And so they never knew until it was done, and then if they got mad at me, I’d just say, “Oops.” It was really cheap, too. [laughter]

Question: This is for William Binney. I’m a retired programmer and I followed the Russiagate business fairly closely. Tell me if I got this right. I’m not saying I do. The first I heard about Trump being involved with the Russians, was when that file was stolen and given to WikiLeaks. It was taken by, I believe, Seth Rich, a DNC insider, and transferred, I believe, via Craig Murray, to WikiLeaks. There was that file which had the real embarrassing data on it, concerning the Clintons and the DNC that was very embarrassing to them.

As far as I understand, as soon as they found out that the file had been taken, they decided to blame it on the Russians. There was some guy, I think he was a DNC techie, Guccifer 2.0,who made up a totally bogus file, and they tried to make it all about the Russians doing this, instead of just [admitting] the data being stolen. Tell me if I’m right about that part of it. That this other file, this Guccifer 2.0 file, didn’t really matter. Did the VIPS actually analyze the real file? The one that went to WikiLeaks?

Binney: Yes. We did, and that’s why we found the FAT formatting, saying that it was read to a storage device, before WikiLeaks posted it. So, somewhere before there, that would fit with somebody inside the DNC doing it, doing a download to a thumb drive.

And the rest of it, the Guccifer 2.0 is pretty much, it was crap, it was a manufactured thing, so that’s basically right. Yeah.

We just published another article, “Why the DNC Was Not Hacked by the Russians.” Larry Johnson and I wrote it, and it had to do with the file formatting that proved that it was downloaded to a disk, to a thumb drive or some kind of disk, storage device.

Question: My name is Ernest Washington from Chicago, the second city. I’m looking forward for the Manhattan Project to gravitate toward Chicago. I would just like to say, “Thank God for Lyndon LaRouche,” because his wisdom was reflected in the fact that he established an international organization of dedicated, committed people, of all ages, all nationalities, and like that, that will continue his work.

I wouldn’t say it’s ironic, but I think it’s just, that we are holding this conference in “African American History Month,” and the fact that, as the leader of that movement, Dr. Martin Luther King, stated, the movement wasn’t just for that time and that period, but it was universal. It affected what had happened before, and what came after the movement. I think Lyn used to say about what happened to the movement, is that it stopped moving.

On the point of Black History Month, when I first came around the organization, you used to have a lot of the older guys from the civil rights movement come in and give presentations and introduce him (LaRouche), and tell funny jokes about various things. They even named him “An Honorary Negro.” [laughter]

I was blessed to have met Lyn before they started to try to kill him and put him in jail and everything, and I’m glad to be here, and glad to see all of you. Thank God for Lyndon LaRouche. [applause]

Speed: His incarceration earned him that designation.

Question: I’m Philip McMannis. I’m the President of the Rockaway Republican Club in Queens, [New York]. Mr. Binney, how do you avoid the FBI locking you up for lying? Do you just remain silent? You have the right to remain silent. You don’t have to answer the questions.

Binney: No, no, I’ve got the goods on them, so they don’t bother me.

Follow-up: If somebody from the FBI asks you a question is it best to just tell them, “I’m not talking”?

Binney: Yeah, it is. If they say you need your lawyer present, then that will end it.

Follow-up: I’m a big supporter of Trump, and I’m absolutely all about pro-life. I think what we need to do in this country is to remind people of certain laws, and one of those is the Ten Commandments. I live by the Ten Commandments as best as I can. We shouldn’t steal, we shouldn’t lie, and we certainly shouldn’t murder people. Especially, when we all started—we all started where? Conception in the womb, and we must protect that. We fought slavery, and did what we had to do, because it was morally right.

I really believe that we need to have absolute truths and reality. I think the problem now is we have radical relativism. We need to fight for truth, and I just want to bring that up that that’s what we need to do for our country.

Speed: Dennis Small, one of the people who, together with Lyndon LaRouche, went to jail for several years, is going to respond to you about your concern.

Small: Sometimes you can’t avoid going to jail. And sometimes it’s worth it.

The only way to deal with this issue, is to defeat the enemy. Can’t hide. You can’t be “smart,” you can’t lawyer up—that’s a large part of the problem, lawyering up. [laughter]

The enemy has to be defeated! The people behind the frame-ups and the setups have got to be destroyed: The British Empire has got to be destroyed. And if sometimes it takes going to jail to do that, so be it. Some people, Martin Luther King and others, gave their lives. The question is, is the cause, are the ideas, is that for which you’re fighting worth dedicating your entire life to doing, or not? And that’s an individual decision, which every single person in this room has to make.

So don’t start from the standpoint of, “How do I avoid going to jail?” Start from the standpoint of how do we destroy the enemy, to free the entirety of humanity! We’ve got seven billion to worry about! [applause]

Question: I’m Patrick from Connecticut, and I’m glad to be here with everybody. Lyndon LaRouche taught me one thing, out of the short time I’ve known him and the group: Be audacious, bold, and extraordinary. I’m working on something in Connecticut. I’m calling it a seminar series, because I really believe you have to bring people in to an educational program, in order to know what is out there.

I had the pleasure of having one of our top young scientists come and do one of these seminars in Greenwich, the first of many that are going to be taking place. That’s all I wanted to say. You have to teach people the truth. [applause]

Speed: Patrick is also raising money in Connecticut. He may have more to say about that tomorrow.

II. Justice for the Future

OBITUARY

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

(1922–2019)

EIRNS/Stuart Lewis

LaRouche presenting his “Triple Curve” at a Schiller Institute Conference in Crystal City, Virginia on January 17, 1998.

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

Feb. 21—Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., the American economist and statesman who compiled, between 1957 and 2007, the most accurate record of economic forecasting in the world, passed away on February 12, 2019. The author of thousands of articles and over 100 books and book-length pamphlets and strategic studies, LaRouche was one of the most controversial political figures in all of American history.

One reason for this was LaRouche’s proud, vigorous, and enduring Presidential campaign, 1976-2004, to re-establish American Constitutional self-government following the 1963-1968 assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Robert F. Kennedy. Another reason was his successful establishment of an independent news service and intelligence gathering capability that allowed him and his associates an unfiltered evaluations capability, which equipped them to accurately report the true state of the American economy, and often, the true nature of otherwise mysterious American and international political processes.

LaRouche also created an international philosophical association, on the basis of re-creating the knowledge about the millennia-old controversy between the Platonic tradition and the school of Aristotle, the fight between the republican model of state and the oligarchical system of empire.

LaRouche’s reach outside the United States was the result of his successful recruitment of hundreds of politicized students from many nations, particularly in Europe and the Americas. This self-selected intelligentsia gave him the power to originate and implement policy shifts through the deployment of modest but well-trained and extremely well-informed units that catalyzed much larger forces in various nations to sometimes act as “one mind across many continents.”

LaRouche was known for his insistence that the citizens of the United States, as well as citizens of any sovereign nation, have the responsibility to educate themselves on the crucial matters of policy that affect the future of their nations, and of humanity; to propose and defend only those policies that “promote the General Welfare of ourselves and our posterity”; and to defeat predatory financial measures enacted in the pursuit of racialist depopulation policies, sometimes disguised as “environmentalism” or “sustainable development” aimed particularly at the nations of Africa, Asia, and Central and South America.

Though prominent international persons and institutions have recently begun reporting about LaRouche, despite his having been one of America’s most prolific writers no “major media source” has yet dared to quote Lyndon LaRouche’s actual views on any policy matter for which he was noted. This fear of LaRouche is notable, but not new. It was always true that the power of the ideas of LaRouche, as much as, or even more than the person of LaRouche, was deeply feared by his opponents. That fear will not abate with his physical demise.

LaRouche’s Four Laws, his proposal for a United States-Russia-China-India Four Powers Agreement, his invention of the 1983 Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) announced by then-President Ronald Reagan, and his unique five-decade advocacy of thermonuclear fusion power cannot be allowed to be mentioned by “mainstream media” today, even upon the occasion of LaRouche’s death. Were the American people to now know about these policies, and therefore know what they had been denied by the decades-long enforced conspiracy of silence around LaRouche, particularly during the financial crises and useless predatory wars of the past 15 years, they would immediately conclude that someone has been trying very hard all these years to keep them away from Lyndon LaRouche’s ideas.

“He’s a bad guy, but we can’t tell you why” will no longer suffice as an explanation for these people, as to why they should not, even now, know “who Lyndon LaRouche is.” In successfully breaking the confines of fake news at this moment, the real Lyndon LaRouche can finally be heard and become known. To that end, the following brief, very incomplete account of his life and work is supplied.

The Development of a World Statesman

LaRouche established himself over more than four decades as the foremost enemy of the British Imperial System, in both its pre-World War II and ongoing post-war Commonwealth incarnations. LaRouche’s service in World War II, particularly in the India-Burma-China theatre, was personally decisive. “It was the experience in Calcutta, in 1946, which defined my principal lifelong commitment, that the United States should take postwar world leadership in establishing a world order dedicated to promoting the economic development of what we today call ‘developing nations,’” LaRouche wrote in his autobiography, The Power of Reason: 1988. LaRouche began to do battle with the “political economic theorists” and slave-traders of the modern-day British East India Company, whose theories dominated American university Economics departments in the aftermath of World War II.

LaRouche fiercely opposed the conception of man-as-a-beast advocated by Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes, Parson Thomas Malthus, and John Locke. Instead, LaRouche re-established the science of physical economy in the United States, a science invented in 1672 by the German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz, inventor of the calculus and co-inventor of the steam engine. Through an intensive period of study between 1948 and 1952, LaRouche advanced his independent studies in physical science in order to develop his method of economic forecasting. The 1983 book, LaRouche: Will This Man Become President? states: “What LaRouche first recognized during 1952, was that by adopting a conception of energy which is fully consistent with [Bernhard] Riemann’s 1854 dissertation, ‘On the Hypotheses Which Underlie Geometry,’ it is possible to measure both technology and economic growth in terms of energy so defined. In LaRouche’s work, economic value—real economic growth—is measured primarily in terms of increases of the potential relative population density of society.”

A Deeper Epistemological Task

LaRouche, however, looked at all of his work on physical economy as the specific expression of a deeper epistemological task. In his 1988 article, “Beethoven as a Physical Scientist,” LaRouche writes:

My most important discoveries, in every field which I have contributed, are based upon my successful refutation of the famous Kantian paradox reasserted in Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Judgment. Kant asserted two things of relevance here.

First, he insisted that although creative processes responsible for valid fundamental scientific discoveries exist, these processes themselves are beyond all possible human understanding. That I proved to be false, and from that proof developed an approach to intelligible representation of those creative processes, and hence the implicit measurement of technological progress as such.

Second, on the basis of the first assumption, Kant argued that there were no intelligible criteria of truth or beauty in aesthetics. The toleration which has been gained so generally by all modern irrationalism in matters of art, has depended upon German and other acceptance of this thesis on aesthetics advanced by Kant and Friedrich Carl von Savigny later.

The prolific nature of Lyndon LaRouche’s writings, in the fields of music, economics, history, language, and the physical sciences, inspired many collaborations and exchanges with people throughout the world. LaRouche, importantly, was a statesman—not a politician—a practitioner of statecraft, in the Socratic-Athenian sense. He established organizations through teaching, starting with a several-part lecture series in 1966, through which he advanced and debated his method of economic forecasting, especially on university campuses. Many first encountered LaRouche on one side of a debate, held with campus economic and political authorities of the 1970s. This stopped after LaRouche’s famous 1971 debate with economist Abba Lerner, who lost by admitting that if the austerity policies of German Finance Minister Hjalmar Schacht had been implemented in the 1920s, “Hitler would not have been necessary.” Within months, no one could be found to debate LaRouche, and no such debates ever again occurred.

LaRouche’s lectures on what was at the time called “dialectical economics,” were precisely that—dialogues between LaRouche and philosophical, economic and scientific figures from history, portrayed by him with storyteller precision, always done without notes, and often done without any books at all. Students were supplied with an extensive syllabus of reading material, with suggested readings detailed week by week. One student recalled that “passages were referred to from a work like Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason, for example. You would be told to read it. If you did so, and came to the class the next week, he would first describe what his idea was of the passage, which was persuasive as well as accurate. He would then proceed to destroy it piece by piece, and because you had read it, and accepted it, you got to discover the fallacies lurking at the bottom of your own mind. He demonstrated to you the difference between reading and thinking. They weren’t classes: They were soliloquies. And that’s how we got interested.”

LaRouche’s primary organization was the National (later International) Caucus of Labor Committees, a philosophical association organized as a “system of conferences,” usually held twice yearly. From this association sprang many other organizations, such as the Fusion Energy Foundation, the U.S. Labor Party, the National Democratic Policy Committee, the Anti-Drug Coalition, and others. LaRouche also founded and worked with organizations in France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Canada, Denmark, Mexico, Colombia, Peru, Australia, and many other nations.

In December of 1977, LaRouche married Helga Zepp of Germany, later the creator of the Schiller Institute, a policy institution for the promotion of statecraft and a renaissance of Classical culture.

“In the fall of 1977, I suggested that we marry. . . . I was a little surprised, but pleasantly, when she agreed. . . . There was nothing ordinary about the lives of either of us, nor was it ever likely to be otherwise. We married in Wiesbaden on December 29, 1977. The service was in German; the official of the Standesamt asked me in German, if I knew what was happening. There was laughter about that question among my friends for weeks afterward.” They remained married for 41 years.

The Combat, and the Consequences

The combative nature and polemical style of the campaigns, electoral and non-electoral, of LaRouche and his associates, were unique in American political life in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. LaRouche’s 1976 half-hour broadcast, “Emergency Address to the Nation,” was the first time an independent candidate had ever purchased that quantity of television time in a U.S. federal election. LaRouche appeared on television fifteen times during the Presidential election of 1984 in 30-minute segments, virtually inventing what would later be imitated as the “infomercial.” The LaRouche Presidential candidacies, and the candidacies of his associates, including the running of 1,000 candidates for office in 1986 alone, both terrified LaRouche’s opponents in the United States, and inspired others to have the courage not merely to run for office, but to support policies designed to benefit all of humanity, not merely “their local mud-hole.”

One such policy was the International Development Bank (IDB), a 1975 LaRouche proposal to replace the International Monetary Fund, and to develop what was then termed “the Third World” through providing for the export of, not only American-built technology, but entire cities. These cities were to be built as training sites for the rapid development of the skills of developing-sector populations, enabling them to create their own “full-set” economies, rather than become debt-slaves, as in fact occurred.

Persons such as Frederick Wills, the former Foreign Affairs Minister of Guyana, advocated LaRouche’s IDB proposal in a 1976 session of the United Nations. Mexico’s President José López Portillo and India’s Prime Minister Indira Gandhi met with Lyndon and Helga LaRouche and adopted aspects of his proposals, many of which were presented as book-length treatments, such as “Operation Juárez” for Mexico and “The Industrialization of India: From Backwardness to Industrial Power in Forty Years” and a “A Fifty-Year Development Policy for the Indian-Pacific Oceans Basin”—all papers written by LaRouche in the early 1980s, and whose central outlook is still current, not only for today, but for the next decade or more.

The unorthodox method for dispersing these ideas advocated by LaRouche was Socratic: talking to people one on one. This daily street organizing occurred at unemployment centers, post offices, airports and traffic intersections, street corners, downtown areas and shopping malls. This direct contact with the American population resulted in LaRouche having a better reading on what was happening in the United States “from on the ground” than any other political force in the country. Corrupt elements of the Justice Department, and “quasi non-governmental organizations” who were given the green light to illegally disrupt the Constitutionally-guaranteed right of LaRouche’s associates to organize, were forced to resort to characterizing the organization as a “cult” in order to dissuade citizens from contributing to companies associated with the LaRouche political movement.

Some Stunning Forecasts

None of LaRouche’s detractors are able to deny his record of successful economic forecasts, including the collapse of the Bretton Woods System on August 15, 1971, the October 1987 collapse of the Wall Street stock market (which LaRouche forecast in May of that year), and his July 22, 2007 forecast, captured in webcast format, of what later became the September 2008 “trillions-dollar bailout.” Some of the most stunning of LaRouche forecasts, though, were not, strictly speaking, economic. On Columbus Day, October 12, 1988, Lyndon LaRouche, speaking at Berlin’s Kempinski Hotel Bristol, said:

By profession, I am an economist in the tradition of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz and Friedrich List in Germany and of Alexander Hamilton and Mathew and Henry Carey in the United States. My political principles are those of Leibniz, List, and Hamilton, and are also consistent with those of Friedrich Schiller and Wilhelm von Humboldt. Like the founders of my republic, I have an uncompromising belief in the principle of absolutely sovereign nation-states, and I am therefore opposed to all supranational authorities which might undermine the sovereignty of any nation. However, like Schiller, I believe that every person who aspires to become a beautiful soul, must be at the same time a true patriot of his own nation, and also a world citizen.

For these reasons, during the past 15 years I have become a specialist in my country’s foreign affairs. As a result of this work, I have gained increasing, significant influence among some circles around my own government on the interrelated subjects of U.S. foreign policy and strategy. My role during 1982 and 1983 in working with the U.S. National Security Council to shape the adoption of the policy known as the Strategic Defense Initiative, or “SDI,” is an example of this. Although the details are confidential, I can report to you that my views on the current strategic situation are more influential in the United States today that at any time during the past. Therefore, I can assure you that what I present to you now, on the subject of prospects for the reunification of Germany, is a proposal which will be studied most seriously among the relevant establishment circles inside the United States. Under the proper conditions, many today will agree, that the time has come for early steps toward the reunification of Germany, with the obvious prospect that Berlin might resume its role as the capital.

Targeted for Destruction

Two days after his Kempinski Hotel speech, federal indictments were issued against Lyndon LaRouche and several associates. Later, LaRouche, in speaking at the National Press Club on the indictments, stated: “One could say of the indictment itself, that all those that perpetrate offenses against God, or humanity, or both, are sooner or later punished.” The indictments followed by two years an October 6, 1986 assassination attempt against LaRouche, about which LaRouche wrote in his 2004 pamphlet titled, “‘Convict Him, or Kill Him!’ The Night They Came To Kill Me,” the following:

On October 6, 1986, a virtual army of more than four hundred armed personnel descended upon the town of Leesburg, Virginia, for a raid on the offices of EIR and its associates, and also deployed for another, darker mission. The premises at which I was residing at that time were surrounded by an armed force, while aircraft, armored vehicles, and other personnel waited for the order to move in shooting. Fortunately, the killing did not happen, because someone with higher authority than the Justice Department Criminal Division head, William Weld, ordered the attack on me called off. The forces readied to move in on me, my wife, and a number of my associates, were pulled back in the morning.

This was the second fully documented case of a U.S. Justice Department involvement in operations aimed at my personal elimination from politics.

Though LaRouche and six others were found guilty in an Alexandria, Virginia court in December of 1988, and were imprisoned on January 27, 1989, the international and national outcry against those corrupt convictions continues to this very day. Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark said the LaRouche case “represented a broader range of deliberate cunning and systemic misconduct over a longer period of time using the power of the federal government resources than any other prosecution by the U.S. government in my time or to my knowledge.” Executive Intelligence Review’s September 2017 dossier, “Robert Mueller Is an Amoral Legal Assassin: He Will Do His Job If You Let Him,” comprehensively reviews how the current special prosecutor against Donald Trump was a key component of the political persecution of Lyndon LaRouche in the 1980s.

During his time spent in prison, LaRouche continued to write, but by often dictating whole chapters of book manuscripts on phone calls, again without reference works of any kind. Apart from the collection titled The Science of Christian Economy and Other Prison Writings, LaRouche wrote or recorded many other documents, some of which have been compiled with other never-before-published writings.

During 1989, as it became clear that the Soviet Union’s Comecon sphere was experiencing increasing economic difficulties, LaRouche and his wife Helga cooperated intensely on a program called the “Productive Triangle Paris-Berlin-Vienna,” which after the disintegration of the Soviet Union was extended into the “Eurasian Land-Bridge.” After the elimination of the Iron Curtain, this program suggested the integration of the population and industrial centers of Europe with those of Asia through so-called development corridors. It was the only comprehensive peace plan for the 21st Century on the table at that time, an option which was fiercely countered by the British and the Anglophile neo-cons in the United States, who instead pushed their policy of a unipolar world and neoliberal system. The Eurasian Land-Bridge, very early on, became known as “The New Silk Road.” Over two decades later, the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative, which grew out of this concept, has become the primary locomotive of world physical economy.

Changing Thousands of Lives

Upon his release from prison on January 26, 1994, LaRouche continued his career as a forecaster. He developed his “Triple Curve” pedagogy in 1995 to illustrate to non-economists how the process of “Weimar Germany-like hyperinflation” had gripped the trans-Atlantic world, and had so looted it that nothing could be done to preserve the dominant money system: It would have to be reorganized from the top down, utilizing Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal-era Glass-Steagall Act to begin the process of bank reorganization. He warned in January 2001 of the danger of a violent terrorist attack on one or more American cities, placing this warning within the context of reviewing why and how the financial system had entered a phase of a “high-tech bubble” during 1999-2000.

LaRouche spoke of a “Reichstag Fire” possibility in light of the emerging ungovernability of the United States, under conditions of deepening economic ruin. And, as with his May 1987 forecast of a collapse of the stock market in October of 1987, on July 22, 2007 LaRouche stated, one year before the Lehman Brothers/AIG meltdown of September 2008:

The world monetary financial system is actually now currently in the process of disintegrating. There is nothing mysterious about this; I’ve talked about it for some time, it’s been in progress, it’s not abating. What’s listed as stock values and market values in the financial markets internationally is bunk! They are purely fictitious beliefs. There is no truth to it; the fakery is enormous. There is no possibility of a non-collapse of the present financial system—none! It’s finished, now!

The present financial system cannot continue to exist under any circumstances, under any Presidency, under any leadership, or any leadership of nations. Only a fundamental and sudden change in the world monetary financial system will prevent a general, immediate chain-reaction type of collapse. At what speed we don’t know, but it will go on, and it will be unstoppable. And the longer it goes on before coming to an end, the worse things will get.

LaRouche, as evidenced from the above forecast, produced at 84 years of age, not only continued to be uniquely productive. At the turn of the millennium, LaRouche spearheaded a movement to recruit youth—a movement which became so successful that the Democratic Party in various parts of the country even attempted to co-opt it. Thousands of youth went through this educational process. Groundbreaking contributions in the presentation of the work of physicist Johannes Kepler, in the practice of bel canto Classical singing both for general secondary school education and as an antidote to cultural self-degradation, and the presentation of American history, including American current history (rather than “current events” or the even more degrading term, “news”), in video format such as the program 1932, were produced by the LaRouche Youth Movement.

From the time of his emergence as a public figure over fifty years ago, the only tragedy that characterized Lyndon LaRouche’s life, is that he was never permitted to carry out, either as President or as an adviser to the serving President, the economic reforms that would have improved the lives of tens of millions of Americans and hundreds of millions around the world.

Although Lyndon LaRouche has many friends who were leaders in the fields of science, music, economy, and politics, his greatest friend, apart from his wife, Helga, were the forgotten men and women of America and other countries.

Messages of Condolence

On the Passing of Lyndon LaRouche

Messages of condolence over the passing of Lyndon H. LaRouche, and of tribute to his life’s work, continue to pour in from around the world. The following is a small selection of the many received so far, as of February 24.

UNITED STATES

God bless him for his courage in the face of injustice and suffering.

Richard Black

Virginia State Senator

Virginia, U.S.A.

If you recently noticed a slight shiver in the continuum, it was the Universe reacting to the passing of one of the greatest minds in American history. Lyndon LaRouche, by far the most adept political economist since Alexander Hamilton, passed into eternity on Tuesday the 12th of February, 2019. He extolled the virtues of the American System of Political Economy decade after decade. His writings will influence thoughtful political economists for generations to come, and will therefore remain integral to the American Experiment for years, perhaps centuries, to come.

He got the Gestapo treatment from British Liberals in the swamp, compelled to do so by their British masters, and was prosecuted by Robert Swan Mueller III, who used tenuous evidence and extortion of witnesses to make his case. This is the same Robert Swan Mueller III who protected potential Saudi terrorists on behalf of George W. Bush, and family.

Donald Trump openly promoted elements of the American System of Political Economy in his campaign, and the System itself upon election. Hardly a surprise he has been targeted by the same swamp creatures, and their handlers in the British ruling class. And by nearly identical tactics. The difference of course is that Donald Trump is the duly elected President of the United States. This marks the swamp creatures as traitors and their handlers in London as enemies of the state.

It remains to be seen if justice will be served and the American System of Hamilton, Lincoln, and Lyndon LaRouche prevails. If it does, that would be a living memorial to the great mind that passed from us.

Joe Cope

Former Meteorologist, NOAA

Maryland, U.S.A.

May Mr. Lyndon LaRouche Rest in Peace! He gave his very best to mankind!

My sympathies are conveyed to you at this very sad time! You as others have lost a fine mentor, teacher and very close friend.

Be well my friends and do keep the distinguished legacy of Mr. LaRouche alive for many years to come with your having good health and much career satisfaction in your devotion to this fine human being and for all which he represented.

Sherwood (Woody) Goldberg

Colonel (ret.), U.S. Army, Bronze Star

Former Associate Professor, U.S. Military Academy, West Point, N.Y.

Pennsylvania, U.S.A.

So sorry to hear the sad news today. My sympathies to all who loved and worked with him. But so angry to read those obits. For a minute I considered posting comments, but then came to my senses. Nothing will change the Official Narrative, or the views of people whose minds were inculcated with lies from decades of negative press. At least all the photos I’ve seen, had him looking good; the WSJ’s was even in color.

Three times I saw him speak in person; the first was almost a life-changing event. He was magnificent!

Clark Johnsen

Retired NASA scientist

Massachusetts, U.S.A.

I am glad to have met him and enjoy the hospitality of his home. I respected his efforts to make this world a better place than when he came into it.

Please tell Helga that I am always sorrowful when any brave humanitarian leaves this earth. It took bravery and courage for both she and he to speak to power all over this world. I am sorry for her personal loss and I hope time will heal the grief she is now experiencing. I wish her the best and may God continue to strengthen her to continue the fight against the evil and manipulation that is being perpetrated in this world.

Aaron V. Leathers

Bass-Baritone

Virginia, U.S.A.

CHINA

Dear Mrs. LaRouche,

It came as a great shock to read the heartbreaking news about the passing of Mr. Lyndon LaRouche—a Titan of thought, an Encyclopedic figure, a great soul in his love for humanity and the ardent supporter of the Chinese One Belt One Road Initiative.

The concept of the Belt and Road Initiative is making a contribution to global governance theory. This concept reflects the canon of a new global governance theory, and it has provided tangible theoretical support for a new type of world order. Actually, we are looking forward to a new mode of thinking, when we are dealing with international and global affairs. In order to change the decades-long irrational global governance system, and to make the global governance system and the global order more sound and healthy. Mr. LaRouche and his wife Mrs. Helga Zepp-LaRouche, as early as the 1990s, had come up with a new idea about building a tunnel under the Bering Strait, as well as establishing a Eurasian Land-Bridge to connect the world, so that people of all countries and continents can benefit from this new connection. So common prosperity is the basis for a new global governance system.

These two dignitaries, who have been making contributions to the establishment of a new global order and a new system of global governance, have paid special attention to the role of China and Asia in establishing this kind of new order. Now we have a common consensus in the world that the New Silk Road is only the first step of economic integration of the world and the first light in the darkness on the road toward a new human civilization.

Mr. Lyndon LaRouche, you were a most reliable friend of Chinese people and they will never forget you,

Sr. Col. (ret.) Bao Shixiu

Professor of Military Affairs and Senior Research Fellow

Academy of Military Sciences

Beijing, China

I’m greatly shocked and in deep sorrow after hearing the news of the death of Mr. Lyndon H. LaRouche. I believe that Mr. Lyndon H. LaRouche, as a famous writer and political activist, his efforts in social justice will be remembered and admired forever. Though I know this is a great loss to you and the institute, I sincerely hope that you can restrain your grief and recover from it soon.

Wang Zhen

Professor, China Studies Institute

Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences

Shanghai, China

RUSSIA

“A Great Thinker of Our Time,” Lyndon LaRouche, has left us. He was a titan of thought, a man of incredibly encyclopedic knowledge, great soul, and love for humanity.

He will always remain in our memory as an ardent fighter for mankind’s happy future, based on implementation of the principles of physical economy—a realistic school of economic thought, directed towards the creation of material benefits and the conditions for socioeconomic development.

In contrast to the libertarian tendency that today dominates mainstream economic ideology, in the interests of the world financial oligarchy, Lyndon LaRouche developed genuine economic science in the interests of the development of the productive forces of mankind. His concept of a Eurasian development bridge from Western Europe to Russia’s Far East, and onward to Alaska and the U.S.A., could become a real alternative to today’s hybrid world war. LaRouche foresaw the Russophobic aggression of the American ruling elite and warned of its ruinous consequences, insisting on broad international cooperation for the creation of transcontinental development corridors.

LaRouche forecast the inevitable onset of a global financial crisis, many years before it arrived. LaRouche’s famous curve [the Triple Curve], depicting the growing gap between the volume of real output and that of financial speculation, was a serious warning for all economists who were really thinking. It turned out that not only in Russia, but also in the U.S.A., “no one is a prophet in his own country.” Instead of being recognized, LaRouche was persecuted by the American financial oligarchy, who imprisoned him on false charges.

I remember one of the leaders of the Brookings Institution urging me, in a whisper, not to have any contact with LaRouche, so as not to spoil my reputation. For me, who had come to the U.S.A. to take part in a scientific forum on issues of developing democratic institutions in the post-Soviet region, this was shocking. From then on, I started closely reading LaRouche’s publications and attending conferences he organized. And I must acknowledge that his presentations were often a ray of light in the kingdom of darkness and hypocrisy, which had seized the public mind of “progressive” mankind.

EIR magazine, published by LaRouche, was a guidebook through the dark corridors of the Western ruling elite, exposing the hidden springs of the world financial oligarchy’s antihuman policies. Tracing the fonts of its origin from the time of the sack of the Byzantine Empire, he described the eternal struggle against that worldwide evil, which is incarnate in the oligarchical clans of capitalism in the West. Many of the recurrences of racism, Nazism and fascism, and religious extremism, which we observe in the world today, cannot be explained without LaRouche’s investigations, which were striking in their historical depth.

LaRouche enjoyed enormous respect among the expert community in many countries around the world. I have had the opportunity to meet his supporters in India, Latin America, China, Africa, and, of course, in Europe and the CIS countries. One would hope for this international expert community, inspired by the ideas of Lyndon LaRouche, to be preserved. Today those ideas are coming to life in a new world economic paradigm, which we call “integral,” for it unites the interests of the peoples of various countries in the harmonious development of humanity.

Sergei Glazyev

Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Adviser to the President of the Russian Federation

Moscow, Russia

Dear Mrs. LaRouche,

It was with big sorrow that we read the sad news about the demise of Professor Lyndon H. LaRouche—a great scholar, scientist, and economist, a champion of justice and fair global order, an irreconcilable fighter against the predatory and marauding behavior in international politics and economy, as well as a good and long-standing friend of our RAS Institute of Far Eastern Studies.

I was not fortunate enough to have the pleasure and honor of meeting Professor LaRouche personally, but my more lucky colleagues remember his energy, enthusiasm, an excellent sense of humor, while all of us, including myself, have been impressed by his extraordinary insight, sharp judgments on the most acute issues of the world affairs, and his great wisdom.

Alas, the world has suffered a grievous loss.

Please, accept our word of condolence, and extend it to Schiller Institute.

We are convinced that you and your colleagues will continue the great cause of Lyndon LaRouche and win his battle.

The Academic Council and all scholars of the IFES join me in wishing you the moral strength to live through your husband’s demise and to be able to work further on so that to realize his legacy.

Prof. Dr. Sergei G. Luzianin

Director, Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Far Eastern Studies

Moscow, Russia

We were very saddened by the bitter news about the passing of Lyndon LaRouche, the founder and inspirer of the Schiller Institute. We would like to express our deepest condolences to Helga Zepp-LaRouche, as well as to the relatives and colleagues. We are convinced that the paradigm of international, political, and economical intervention that he had proposed will be further developed by his apprentices and associates.

H.E. Ambassador Vassily A. Nebenzia

Ambassador and Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations

(Presented by Counsellor Theodore Strzhizhovskiy at the Feb. 16, 2019 Schiller Institute conference in Morristown, N.J., as part of a longer presentation to that gathering.)

INDIA

I met Lyndon LaRouche on two, maybe three, occasions—some three decades ago now—when he came to India.

To me Mr. LaRouche came across as an old-style American whose life mission was to get America back (after the disruptions of the Second and Cold Wars) to its founding anti-colonial Constitutional roots.

He had little time for the so-called “New Economy” of making money by being middle-men in mere information circulation. In any case he saw nothing in such mega-enterprises that negated what he considered the political philosophy of the real American economy: Alexander Hamilton’s “Report on Manufactures.”

Indeed, information circulation and management should be recognised only for what they are: facilitators and catalysers of the real economy of infrastructure build—particularly in the post-colonial countries—and manufacture, particularly of capital equipment, powered by clean nuclear energy.

I mentioned his name to a visiting American businessman with a liberal social persuasion, who exclaimed: “LaRouche is so far on the Right, he is on the Left.”

“Ah! Like Gandhi you mean,” said I.

Dr. V. Siddhartha

Senior Associate, National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bangalore

Emeritus Scientist, Defence Research and Development Organisation

India

Lyndon H. LaRouche, or Lyn as he was known to his many admirers across continents, was a man of amazing erudition, versatility, and charm that he used only when he chose to turn it on. He was a giant among men both in his physical stature and supreme self-confidence, along with his soaring intellect.

It is difficult to classify Lyn because there were few persons like him that I had the pleasure to come across in my life. He was prescient. His opponents realised it only after the event. The problem with Lyn was also that he could not suffer fools. Nor was he sparing in his acerbic comments when the speaker during a presentation did not come to the point or tended to wander off. To those who did not know him, Lyn was not easy to get on with him. To his admirers, he was up there.

He will be sorely missed by his countless admirers. Lyn, we will continue to miss you till we draw breath.

Major General (ret.) Vinod Saighal

Former, Director General Military Training, Indian Army

Author of several books, including the 1998, Third Millennium Equipoise

New Delhi, India

ARGENTINA

I’ve received your message with the sad news of the passing of LaRouche, at 96 years of age, and please accept my deepest condolences. He had a long life and kept up his intense work to the very last day, leaving behind a testament to his multifaceted work in the areas of the humanities, scientific thought, economics, politics and foreign affairs. Without doubt, those who worked with him in these endeavors will continue his work. Please transmit to Helga my most sincere condolences and a warm embrace.

Leopoldo Frenkel

Former Mayor of Buenos Aires

Argentina

I have just learned of the passage to eternity of our great teacher Lyndon LaRouche. Now he is present in the pantheon of those thinkers who were decisive for humanity. Our mission now is to be the apostles of his ideas, and continuers of his studies of physical economy, which reigns over the universe, in contrast to the speculative economy which is the Apocalypse.

Ever present with you, and with Helga Zepp-LaRouche, to whom I ask that you transmit my most heartfelt condolences.

Dr. Julio C. González

Former Secretary to the Presidency of Isabel Perón, 1974-1976

Buenos Aires, Argentina

To the entire LaRouche team, and especially to Sra. Helga, I send my most heartfelt condolences. It is so hard to accept that a statesman, Our Teacher, will no longer be with us physically, but yet his ideas have triumphed. God rewarded him, prolonging his life so he could appreciate his success. Now we must continue the fight which Don Lyndon led, which will be our excellent homage to him, who dedicated his brilliant intelligence and his entire life so that mankind could find the correct path toward peace and happiness. My fraternal greetings to the entire LaRouche team, and my deepest respect for Sra. Helga.

Hector Salvi

Former Governor of the Province of Santa Fé

Argentina

AUSTRALIA

Dear Helga:

Noelene and I, personally, and on behalf of our organization and our many, many members, wish to pass on our heartfelt condolences on hearing the sad news that Lyn passed away after a long and truly extraordinary life of 96 years. For the last 30 years, following the formation of our organization, Lyn’s personality and inspired understanding of history, physical economy, science, philosophy, culture and statecraft, and most importantly, his vision for humanity, have guided and sustained us in becoming more creative individuals capable of freeing our nation and the world from the evils of oligarchism. His life’s work will continue to guide us, as Lyn does indeed live in the simultaneity of eternity, along with his many friends and collaborators throughout ages past and those yet to come.

Again, our deepest sympathy.

Craig and Noelene Isherwood

On behalf of the Citizens Electoral Council

Melbourne, Australia

GREECE

Dear Helga,

Edith and I were very saddened to learn that Lyndon is no longer with us and would like to express to you our deepest sympathy and condolences. However, his work and his contributions to humanity remain with us and must continue to be promoted to the world. I am reading his book about the next fifty years and I am positively impressed by his vision. During discussions that we had with Lyndon on the margins of last year’s conference of the Schiller Institute, he showed the practical solutions that he proposed to solve the problems facing humanity today. His legacy must continue to be explained and consolidated for the benefit of the world. We are at your disposal to help in any way possible.

Our thoughts are with you in these very difficult moments that you are going through. With all our sympathy and affection.

Leonidas Chrysanthopoulos

Ambassador ad honorem

Greece

Dear Dr. Helga Zepp-LaRouche,

I was sorry to hear about the loss of a truly remarkable personality as Lyndon H. LaRouche has been. His work will remain with us all as an inspiration of a truly resilient spirit, which, as a source of sanity, propagated a way to recovery and renewal for our saturated political and economic system.

Besides his truly strategic analyses, he also stressed the role of culture, music, and philosophy as part of a unified approach to better improve our understanding of our current situation.

If I may suggest, there is a need for an International Conference in a key European Capital to articulate the work of Lyndon LaRouche and the principles he devoted his life for. This I believe will be a Mnemosynon [Monument], as his ideas will be in dialog with the Future, which is already here.

As Europe is in turmoil, the work of Lyndon H. LaRouche will find its way as a peaceful way to social development and ecumenical dialog.

Please accept my Condolences.

Prof. George O. Tsobanoglou, PhD

Carleton University of the Aegean, Mytilini

Greece

ITALY

It is with deep sorrow that I learned about the departure of our “father” Lyndon LaRouche. I say “our father” because he took my hand to make me understand the universality of the economy as basis of civilian society and for the development of peoples. Lyndon taught me physical economy, geopolitics, the connection between economics, development and the universe.

Lyndon was a person you would love as he loved humanity.

We had the honor of having him in Ascoli Piceno back in the year 2000. Still today, people remember that American politician who would formulate always exact economic and political forecasts.

Thank you, Lyn, for everything you gave us. You will stay in our hearts and our minds in the hope that your economic writings soon become University and universal textbooks.

You won’t meet Bush in Paradise, but I am sure that with Thomas Aquinas, Gauss, Leonardo, you will have much to say and will keep inspiring us on Earth with your writings which are real pearls of wisdom.

Thank you, Lyn, you will always be an example to follow, an example of morality and commitment to thy neighbor. We will never cease to love you. Farewell.

Francesco Caprioli

Former Provincial President, Confapi (Association of Small Enterprises)

Ascoli Piceno, Italy

I offer my greeting and my memorial to a giant of politics and the world economy, who yesterday unfortunately left us. Those who know me, will have heard me mention it in more than one place, private and public, mainstream or not. I’m talking about Lyndon LaRouche. A very heavy name only to be cited, because today’s emblem of a very strict historical judgment towards the amour global élite. Lyn has dedicated a life to fighting this, against his inhuman conceptions of the same idea of Man, as the Malthusian ones advocated by geo-political environmentalism. Plato, Cusano, Schiller, Leibniz, some of the figures that inspired the political-philosophical thought. The American system of political economy, as last resumed by Franklin Roosevelt, has inspired economic thought. The Florentine Renaissance was considered by him as a model to inspire a cultural rebirth of humanity.

But the most important ideas that inspired thought are, in short: the idea of Man made in the image and likeness of God; the equality of every human being and the right of everyone to an integral development; the concept of the Common Good as the only polar star to have to guide politics; the concept of potential relative demographic density, which he devised, as a technical concept worthy of inspiring economic action; the defense of the nation-state, as an immediate and authentic expression of democracy.

His disappearance today makes no public noise, despite his seven candidacies for the U.S. presidency, for the ostracism to which today’s cultural complex has forced him, such that only lovers of Truth, have got in key “anti-wikipediana,” to know the thought and the work. However, its role in the history of Humanity, has produced, is producing and will produce effects in a humanistic, republican and universal brotherhood, of which the emerging clash between elites and peoples, is only the first taste.

His extraordinary collaborators, thanks to the authoritativeness of the thought to whose training Lyn himself has contributed, will bring forward the thought and the work.

Claudio Giudicci

National Chairman of Uritaxi, the taxi

drivers’ union

Italy

My heartfelt condolences for the loss of your leader and of the person who has inspired the precious activity of the movement. I will gladly read, like usual, the material you gave me, in the belief that even if the physical person has left us, your movement will be able to keep alive and spread his intellectual legacy and his ideas for the development of a better world.

Please forward my embrace to all members of the movement, who today have lost a major leader.

Marco Zanni

Member of the European Parliament

Italy

MALAYSIA

OMG! I am utterly shocked and devastated by this news, especially at this critical time of global crisis. Please convey my deepest condolences to Helga and the family and entire EIR team. His wisdom will surely live on but, his courage, indomitable spirit and strength will be sorely missed. History will judge him as a giant, way above his peers on all critical issues for the last five decades or more. Lyndon had a huge impact on my struggles and his and your unjust imprisonment was the mental template for me to emulate and adopt during those critical days when I was unjustly incarcerated as a terrorist and when I was also on hunger strike. The weight was made lighter for me when I felt and appreciated that what Lyndon and you went through in prison was a thousand times worse and more cruel to your humanity and dignity. I therefore, thank you and Lyndon for the inspiration.

I am lost for words, so the above eulogy is the best that I can do for the moment as it is just too much to absorb the news of his passing. I seek your indulgence for any inadequacy and omissions.

As ever,

Matthias Chang

Lawyer, former advisor to Prime Minister Mahathir Bin Mohamad

Malaysia

PHILIPPINES

Today, the Philippine LaRouche Society joins millions around the world in mourning the loss of a truly great man. Lyndon LaRouche is God’s gift to modern man, the most intelligent and morally courageous human being I have ever had the privilege of meeting in my entire life. As many great men in the past, the magnitude of his contribution to humanity, his true greatness, will be realized globally, only after his death.

Sharing his genius in teaching contemporary man how to think, how to discover truth, how to study history, how the future determines the present, that we human beings are immortal, having been created in His image and likeness, and how important it is to share all we know with our fellow men in a spirit of agapē, so that each of us can discover the very reason why God has created us in the first place.

Lyndon LaRouche may have left his physical existence, but he lives on through us, as we share his ideas as our own, with the same unselfish intention of improving the quality of life of every human being on this planet.

I thank God for Lyndon LaRouche. We pray that modern man has learned well enough from him, not to self-destruct.

Rest in peace, Lyn . . . in God’s eternal embrace.

Antonio “Butch” “Valdes

Save the Nation Movement, Citizen National Guard, Katipunan ng Demogratikong Pilipino (KDP)

Manila, Philippines

SOUTH AFRICA

The death of our leader, Mr. Lyndon LaRouche, has left us in deep sorrow and sadness. We are at our weakest hour in spirit, but at the same time, we draw strength from having had him as our leader. We will carry the cross forward.

Forward ever, backward never.

I came to know of Lyndon LaRouche’s work while he was in prison. This shows that even a prison could not silence him. Two of our associates from South Africa visited him in prison. Even then the British empire could not break his spirit. I met him later in Germany, in 2007.

“Heroes on the battlefield, cowards at home. I saw this. It disgusted me.” This is how Lyn responded to a question fielded by an African-American, who was being ostracised for being around Lyn. Being associated with Lyndon LaRouche and his ideas is dangerous. He went through his Gethsemane and survived to continue the fight against the evil oligarchy.

Lyn may be gone, but he taught us a lot to be able to carry on. The fight for mankind continues. Lyn, a lover of mankind, really implanted in us the spirit of mankind. He loved humanity including Africans. He was colour blind. His yearning was, “Why shouldn’t the first person on Mars, be an African woman?

One can never forget the spotlight he put on Africa over the Burundi and Rwanda killings, The Lagos Plan of Action, Transaqua and nuclearisation of Africa. He was more African than the Africans, one could say.

At 96 he has scored a perfect score. His Maker has called him because he has passed his examination. For us B graders, who are not bright students, we are still working. We will keep on working until we pass our examination. Let us work very hard to accomplish what Lyn has been doing all his life.

I smell immortality in Lyn.

Really A TALENT WELL SPENT.

On behalf of Africa, May his soul rest in peace.

He has really left his footprint on the sands of time.

Ramasimong Tsokolibane

Leader of LaRouche South Africa

South Africa

(LaRouche South Africa will hold a memorial ceremony.)

THAILAND

I have learnt about the passing of Lyndon LaRouche with lots of sorrow that the world has lost the greatest genius we had ever known. Lyn had largely contributed to the development of the Kra Canal project. He came to Thailand several times to promote the project which is now considered as part of Chinese Belt and Road Initiative and its construction would be soon taking place.

What impressed me and Sophie with Lyn was that he was the one who taught us about arts and sciences, that they are one and the same thing. The idea opens doors for wisdom, beauty, coherent and scientific thinking, and we have learnt a lot.

Sophie and I would like on this occasion to present the deepest condolence to Helga LaRouche for the passing of Lyndon LaRouche, the world genius of all time.

Pakdee and Sophie Tanapura

Development policy advocates

Bangkok, Thailand

UKRAINE

Lyndon LaRouche, the outstanding scholar, economist and humanitarian on a planetary scale, has passed away in his 97th year.

There are not many people in the world, whose work is recognized worldwide. Lyndon LaRouche, the American economist, politician, statesman, and founder of several organizations, which made up the movement bearing his name, earned a place among them.

Lyndon LaRouche has gone down in history as the author of the theory of “physical economy,” as against monetarist conceptions of world government. He creatively developed the legacy of Gottfried Leibniz, who had founded physical economy as a science, as well as the work of Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton. LaRouche was an unflagging fighter against the policies of the IMF, the WTO, and the World Bank, exposing their true essence as institutions of globalization that demolish national economies and thus destroy genuine national sovereignty. He greatly respected U.S. President Abraham Lincoln (and he died on Lincoln’s birthday, 12 February) as expressing the interests of the entire American people. At the same time, LaRouche spared no criticism for the contemporary pleiad of American Presidents, whom he considered puppets of international behind-the-scenes forces, who had bred injustice, conflicts, and wars both in the U.S.A. and in the world as a whole.

Promoting the implementation of his beliefs and ideas, Lyndon LaRouche ran for President of the U.S.A. eight times (from 1976 through 2004). Understandably, the authorities tried to discredit him, as a politician they had no use for, and to put him away in prison. Accordingly, LaRouche was sentenced to 15 years behind bars in 1989, on trumped-up charges of fraud. But his release came about in five years, after hundreds of thousands of scientists, politicians, statesmen and public figures from all continents came out in defense of Lyn (as Lyndon LaRouche is called by his supporters). Vladimir Romanovich Marchenko and I, as People’s Deputies of Ukraine, 2nd convocation of the Supreme Rada, when we had not yet met Lyn personally, but knew of his work and were publicizing his doctrine, signed a petition in his defense.

LaRouche’s attorney Ramsey Clark, the former U.S. Attorney General, stated that his case had been an unprecedented abuse of power by the U.S. Government, in its attempts to destroy the LaRouche organization.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche, whom Lyn married, was a leading activist in the German branch of the LaRouche movement. In 1984, inspired by his ideas and support, she founded the Schiller Institute. Now there are subsidiaries of the Institute and activists of the LaRouche movement on all continents, constituting an intellectual elite in opposition to the mouthpieces of the established world order.

Among the outstanding scientific forecasts of LaRouche are his 1959-60 forecast of the monetary and credit upheavals that would result from the break-up of the Bretton Woods system, his 2007 prediction of the impending world economic crisis, and, in 2010, his forecast of the inexorable collapse of the financial system as a result of speculative financial bubbles (derivatives).

I was very lucky to know Lyn personally. I had come to the attention of his supporters, because in April 1994 I defended my doctoral dissertation in economics, a thorough critique of reforms conducted according to IMF prescriptions. In February 1995, already, Vladimir Marchenko and I flew to the United States at LaRouche’s invitation, for a conference of the LaRouche movement (he was now out of prison). The more than a thousand participants of that conference were a powerful force of fighters against the IMF’s “financial fascism.” That was how LaRouche defined the essence of the IMF’s operations. I was simultaneously shocked and inspired. I believed that Ukraine, too, could be saved from such enslavement. In fairness it should be noted, that even earlier I had tried to preempt the catastrophe, attempting to explain the true nature of the IMF to members of the Socialist Party (of which I had been a leader since 1991), to [Socialist Part head] Moroz as the Speaker of the Parliament, and to the deputies in the majority Group of 239. They didn’t listen to me.

Then Marchenko and I decided to invite the LaRouche people (and Lyn himself, along with Helga) to Ukraine. In the spring of 1995, leading LaRouche movement activists Michael Vitt (Germany) and Dennis Small (U.S.A.) came, and we organized meetings for them with the Political Council of the Socialist Party and the Socialist MPs. In early Summer 1995 Lyndon LaRouche and Helga came. We organized a meeting for them with Alexander Moroz. Lyn offered devastating arguments against the IMF. And all to no avail! The Bible wisely tells us not to cast pearls before swine. At that time everything was in the hands of Moroz and the Communist-Socialist majority in Parliament. It would still have been possible to save our country. We should have immediately exited the IMF and implemented the “Foundations of Domestic and Foreign Policy,” drafted by a group of Ukrainian scientists under my leadership. The Parliament supported this document on 15 June 1994. It provided the basis for implementing the “Economic Program to Prevent a National Catastrophe,” likewise drafted by the group of Ukrainian scientists I led, which I presented in the Supreme Rada on 11 October 1995.

Everything could have been changed! But at the time all those Morozes decided to turn a deaf ear not only to me, but also to the great LaRouche. And then they kept driveling and raving on with their nonsense, while endlessly running for President of Ukraine.

LaRouche tried to save Ukraine. He tried to save the entire planet. He mercilessly criticized the “greens” (showing their ties with the world oligarchy) and upheld the advantages of nuclear power as a necessary precondition for technological progress, and he put forward mind-boggling ideas (ahead of China) for creating international transport corridors, and ideas on organizing flights to Mars and obtaining new sources of energy. He put forward the idea of using “Star Wars” as a defense of our planet against cosmic cataclysms. Actually, LaRouche’s ideas on this have been turned on their head, with the notion of annihilating earthlings from space. And Lyndon LaRouche proposed much, much more during his long life.

Vladimir Marchenko and I visited Lyn at home in the U.S.A. and at Helga’s home in Germany (they maintained two residences for more than 40 years), and attended many conferences they organized. And always (always!), meeting Lyn and Helga was a great event in my life, which would give me a colossal charge of energy for continuing the struggle (difficult, dangerous, and exhausting as it has been) to save Ukraine from enslavement by the world government, and from the impoverishment and physical destruction of our people.

The last time we met with Lyn and Helga was in November of 2017 at a Schiller Institute conference in Germany. Now Helga has been left alone . . . I offer my most sincere condolences on this irreparable loss. Thank you, our great Lyn!

You lived a long, and extraordinarily vivid and full life. Humanity will not forget you! And the looming world catastrophe, which will be a hundred times more destructive than previous upheavals, will inevitably make people recognize the ideas of Lyndon LaRouche and implement them.

The LaRouche movement cannot be stopped.

P.S. On 14 February 2019 the Progressive Socialists of the Kiev city organization of the PSPU held a moment of silence in memory of Lyndon LaRouche at their party meeting.

Dr. Natalia Vitrenko, Doctor of Economics

Chairman of the Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine

People’s Deputy of Ukraine, II and III convocations of the Supreme Rada (1995-2002)

Kiev, Ukraine

YEMEN

As we commiserate you for the loss of your husband and your journey’s companion, we, here in Yemen, remember with gratitude Mr. Lyndon LaRouche’s stances in support of our nation’s just cause in the face of the barbaric aggression waged against our nation, and his eagerness to see our Yemen thrive in peace and security on the basis of LaRouche’s keys of economic development and progress that have been adopted by the BRICS.

Our solace is that the memory of Lyndon LaRouche will remain fragrant in our country through the beautiful impact he has had on building the character of a group of BRICS youth here.

H. E. Engineer Hisham Sharaf

Minister of Foreign Affairs of Yemen in Sana’a

Yemen

Dearest Mrs. Helga LaRouche,

Please accept sincere condolences for the great loss of Mr. Lyndon LaRouche from all his Yemeni friends, large number of youths and the small students in the Model Language School who study his (Lyndon LaRouche’s) matrix for the progress of BRICS countries.

Together here with my wife, son and daughter, along our Yemeni ancient “Gum and Spice Road,” send to you this message after receiving many messages from senior officials in Yemen, especially H.E. Hisham Sharaf, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and H.E. Eng. Khaled Sharaf Al-Deen, the Vice chairman of the Yemeni General Investment Authority.

Lyndon LaRouche was the source of inspiration for us in our youth. We had wished that I or any of the members of my Youth Cabinet would have had the chance to visit him during the last 4 years, but the barbaric attack of the Saudi coalition on Yemen has prevented us from seeing the ones we love!

I have learned a lot from Mr. LaRouche. He is all around us in our thoughts, actions and materials, especially our Operation Felix report, the happy miracle of reconstruction of Yemen and connection to the Belt and Road report, and our Cabinet logo. His thoughts have given us all what we need from One Man to One Mankind.

Thanks for the great army that he left for us in Yemen towards the world land-bridge and the PolyGlobal Universe, the army of Ideas!

I know that no amount words can compensate your loss, but all I can say for now and always is that you are the wife of the winner LaRouche, and that your life partnership with him was the prize!

Fouad Al Ghaffari

President of the Yemeni BRICS & Sdgs Cabinet

Yemen

PETITION

We Call Upon President Trump

To Exonerate LaRouche!

The January 27, 1989 Jailing of Lyndon LaRouche

Defined an Era Which Now Must End

The following Petition for the Exoneration of Lyndon LaRouche, which was issued on January 27, 2019, is being circulated for signatures in many languages worldwide by the Schiller Institute and the LaRouche Political Action Committee.

Many Americans sat in stunned amazement earlier this month as the venerable New York Times and Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s apparatus moved to put the President of the United States, Donald Trump, on trial for treason, because he dared to meet and converse with Russian President Vladimir Putin; because he has referred to NATO as being “obsolete” and questioned its role; and because he fired his director of the FBI, James Comey, as the Constitution prescribes he has the authority to do. Jaws dropped as it became public that top echelons of the FBI, the CIA, and the Democratic Party—all on instructions from British intelligence—had been, and still are to this day, engaged in an active coup d’état against the elected President of the United States. Many of you reading these lines today are rightly aghast at the fact that these actors, although they have not yet achieved their objective, have so far gotten away with their plot, and that they act with seeming impunity. “How is that possible?” you ask yourself and your friends.

To find the answer to that question, you only need look to the events of Jan. 27, 1989—precisely 30 years ago—when Lyndon H. LaRouche and a group of associates were railroaded into prison with lengthy sentences, for crimes they never committed. The frame-up and jailing of LaRouche, facilitated by years of lying media vilification of LaRouche and his movement, which continues to this day, was carried out by the same British-run political apparatus—in many cases, by the same individual hit-men, including Special Counsel Robert Mueller—that today is out to topple the President of the United States.

And it is because they were able to carry out that injustice against LaRouche 30 years ago, despite massive opposition nationally and internationally from prominent civil rights and human rights leaders, elected officials and legal scholars, that they are at it again today, on a grander scale.

In fact, the five-year jailing of Lyndon LaRouche defined an entire era of modern U.S. history, much as the 1963 assassination of John F. Kennedy did.

There is no exaggeration in that statement. Ramsey Clark, who served as Attorney General of the United States under President Lyndon Johnson, and who also represented LaRouche in his appeals to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court, stated in an April 26, 1995 open letter to then Attorney General Janet Reno:

I bring this matter [the LaRouche case] to you directly, because I believe it involves a broader range of deliberate and systematic misconduct and abuse of power over a longer period of time in an effort to destroy a political movement and leader, than any other federal prosecution in my time or to my knowledge.

Clark also said:

The purpose can only be seen as destroying— it’s more than a political movement, it’s more than a political figure; it is those two. But it’s a fertile engine of ideas, a common purpose of thinking and studying and analyzing to solve problems, regardless of the impact on the status quo, or on vested interests. It was a deliberate purpose to destroy that at any cost. . . . In what was a complex and pervasive utilization of law enforcement, prosecution, media, and non-governmental organizations focused on destroying an enemy, this case must be number one.

With LaRouche’s jailing, America and the world were deprived of their most illustrious statesman and economist.

Because LaRouche’s policies for replacing the deadly looting of Wall Street and the City of London with a just New World Economic Order of universal, high tech development, were not implemented, hundreds of millions of people around the world remained in poverty and tens of millions perished unnecessarily. It has only been with China’s recent adoption of policies very similar to those proposed by LaRouche up to 50 years ago, that the genocide has stopped in at least large parts of the planet.

Because LaRouche’s SDI policy, as adopted and proposed by President Ronald Reagan in 1983, was sabotaged and not carried out, the world today teeters at the edge of thermonuclear confrontation. Only a return to LaRouche’s original design of the SDI ballistic missile defense system—based on new physical principles and cooperation with Russia and China, not against them—can now pull us back from the brink.

Because LaRouche’s proposal for cooperation between East and West after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the reunification of Germany—famously forecast by LaRouche in October 1988—was rejected, and LaRouche was hauled off to jail scarcely three months later, Russia was ravaged and the West looted under Thatcher, Bush and Mitterrand. And a wave of permanent wars was unleashed, which is with us still today.

Because LaRouche’s proposed war on drugs against London’s Dope, Inc. banking apparatus was never implemented, a drug epidemic today is poisoning our nation and the world.

And because LaRouche’s policies for generating a new Renaissance of classical culture and science were swept aside, we now stare into the pit of hell of a New Dark Age that is engulfing our youth in particular.

Some among you may disagree. Some may think that no jailing of a single man, no matter how unjustly, could possibly cause such results. But those thinking that way have yet to understand how real history works, how ideas are the driving force of humanity’s advance. In fact, the entire body of LaRouche’s life work and his extensive scientific writings, address precisely that central question: the role of man’s unique creativity in shaping his own history, and that of the physical universe around him. Read and study LaRouche if you wish to understand why the British Empire so fears him.

On March 30, 1984, Lyndon LaRouche wrote a Draft Memorandum of Agreement Between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., with a vision for the future which remains as scientifically valid today as it was 35 years ago. In it, LaRouche stated:

The political foundation for durable peace must be: a) The unconditional sovereignty of each and all nation-states, and b) Cooperation among sovereign nation-states to the effect of promoting unlimited opportunities to participate in the benefits of technological progress, to the mutual benefit of each and all. The most crucial feature of present implementation of such a policy of durable peace is a profound change in the monetary, economic, and political relations between the dominant powers and those relatively subordinated nations often classed as “developing nations.” Unless the inequities lingering in the aftermath of modern colonialism are progressively remedied, there can be no durable peace on this planet.

Insofar as the United States and Soviet Union acknowledge the progress of the productive powers of labor throughout the planet to be in the vital strategic interests of each and both, the two powers are bound to that degree and in that way by a common interest. This is the kernel of the political and economic policies of practice indispensable to the fostering of durable peace between those two powers.

It is time that the damage done by LaRouche’s incarceration three decades ago be repaired—not only because such a terrible injustice was done to LaRouche, but because that injustice has emboldened the British Empire to use the same methods against a sitting President of the United States, which endangers all of humanity. What better way to defend the United States of America and all of humanity than to exonerate LaRouche, ensure that his policies are at last adopted, and recognize his ideas for what they are, the acts of one of history’s greatest geniuses, affording him his rightful place in history.

III. What Comes Next?

August 31, 2013

END THE WALL STREET NIGHTMARE:

What If Wall Street Had Died Now?

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

This article was first published in EIR in its Sept. 13, 2013 issue.

It is long time past to end the torture (and the bull****) of the global economic depression, brought on by the Wall Street criminals and their Greenie shock troops.

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

The odd thing about this presently plunging, global economic depression, is that almost no one whose experience bridges the trans-Atlantic continents, seems to have brought up the subject of the need to end the torture! In fact, it seems to us, on reflection now, that our so-called “greenies” had somehow tried to set our planet’s economic clock to running backwards, as the present U.S. system had been doing since about the same time that President John F. Kennedy had been assassinated.

That much now said, the essential difference between human beings, on the one side, and all other varieties of mammals, on the other, presents us with two inseparable characteristics. First: that the known history of all human varieties is, that all successful, human cultures evolve upwards mentally, rather than according to some simple biological clock.

For example: the human species uses means which are equivalent to “the use of fire” as a standard for our species’ progress; and, that this progress should be normally measured, essentially, in terms of increase of the energy-flux-density of the activities of the human species, as this is to be measured in ranges from simple fire, to both higher modes and effects, all measured, essentially, in a chemistry of a succession of orders of increase of relative energy-flux density. “Normally,” this variation runs upward, as from the simple cooking-fire of the most ancient humans, into successive categories of the higher chemical energy-flux-density chemistries of thermonuclear fission, fusion, or, perhaps matter-anti-matter, and beyond.

Normally, a progress to higher chemistries, is not to be considered as optional in any sense; the viability of all human societies must depend upon the persistently, relatively higher energy-flux densities of modes of existence of mankind as a species. However, sometimes, as now, what should be considered as normal, is turned around, as if by some evil genie.

For example, the current Queen of England, Elizabeth II, has lately prescribed a steep reversal of human progress throughout the planet; she, now, prescribes a radical reduction of the human population, from a human population of seven billions persons, to a recent, increasingly precipitous plunge toward her adopted goal of less than one billion persons. It could be said fairly, that it must seem that the Queen has, therefore, already out-classed Adolf Hitler in setting an intended record for genocide. This pattern is not limited to killing off individual persons; she is, simultaneously, destroying the level of productivity of those who might survive her campaign of genocide. The technical term to describe her presently ongoing intentions, is a freakishly rapid collapse of human “energy-flux density.”

Preface:

Beyond Sense-Perception

The stubborn problem to be considered for an understanding of the problems posed to physical sciences, can be assessed as by errors inherent in the merely ordinary physical mathematics as such. That has been, heretofore, a problem which had been largely created by the uncritical adoption of sense-perception as a standard of measurement for physical science. The issues so defined, have been better treated in such closely related, published references, as in my “Nicholas of Cusa, Kepler, & Shakespeare”[fn_1] (June 10, 2013); “How The Future Builds Its Past”[fn_2] (August 10, 2013); and “Mankind Is No Beast”[fn_3] (August 18, 2013). The common feature of all three of these titles (and some of my other choices of titles of a kindred relevance), typifies a set of references which share a common actuality.

For purposes of discussion of such models here, the common feature is simply definable as a model composed of two distinct parts: (1.) human experience prior to any present moment, and (2.) an actually mental experience of what I name “the future past” yet to be experienced, as this had been demonstrated, for example, in the noëtic, mental experiences of the discoveries of Max Planck, Albert Einstein, and, otherwise, of certain others who are notable for discovery of a future of a to-be-discovered principle existing beyond the actually present time (i.e., in the actually perpetual future). This distinction of those two modern geniuses’ thus contrasted functions of the human mind, can be considered as if acting along a pre-fixed course, but is better referenced to an irregularly moving point in time of immediately most recent experience: by a point which is approached by a march along a sequential line of sensible experiences, but actually occurs during the moment existing in a future which lies beyond the momentary present, the future moment where the mind’s experience lies in its actualized experience of an actual, progressive future beyond the simple reach of every present time.

To rephrase what I have just written here above: there are states of willfully created discoveries of a human-willful quality of change in mankind’s experience-able future discoveries: discoveries of such as actionable physical principles, which pre-determine whether, or not, the human species will have acquired the ability to change those possible principles which would, then, in turn, enable mankind to discover and, thus, change the principles which represent the potential for the change of any relatively predetermined choice of mankind’s knowable future.

That was the same point which I made here, as for example, in my recent June 10th publication of “Nicholas of Cusa, Kepler & Shakespeare.”

To recapitulate what I had just spoken above:

Both of those two points, both the notion of a clock-time present and its mentally experienced sense of an ontologically actual future, define, as a combination, the systemic distinction of the human mind from the, “mentally,” actually moving point, a “point” which is the experience of the progressive movement of the “point” which corresponds to reaching a place not only in the actual present, but, also on the other side, beyond the reach of “every clock time,” in the experience of the second of the two “moving points,” present and future, the second point of which always dwells only in the instant of (ordinarily) the relatively immediate futures. The notion has two contrasted sets of practical meanings: first, an immediate present which has been experienced as the present, and, then, a point always expressed from a movement, or more, beyond that: the moment of experiencing of an actual future (i.e., a foresight). The three examples with which I had opened this Preface, thus identify the difference between man’s supposedly “actual” experience of the human individual’s immediate sense-perception, for man and beast alike, as that difference between present and the future which must be contrasted with the experience of that actual future which only a human forecaster could have actually experienced as by a human being’s own ontological experience of the actual future.[fn_4]

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

All truly great Classical art, like the discoveries of physical scientific progress, alike, occurs only as by actions being generated in the actually future instants beyond the present of the onrushing future, as by Johann Sebastian Bach.

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

The notion of the actuality of the knowable future, and, also, of that future’s power over the generation of its consequence, is well typified by the actual meaning of Johannes Kepler’s use of his term called by me, and by relevant others, as a vicarious hypothesis. The same principled expression is expressed by me in my references to the specificity of Friedrich Schiller’s Wallenstein trilogy, as by Shakespeare’s Chorus in King Henry V; and, as I have emphasized as the principled quality of Wilhelm Furtwängler’s post-World War II direction of the performance of Franz Schubert’s Ninth Symphony. Each of these cases pertains, specifically, to the experiencing of that which, when spoken, will have come to have occurred only in the future of the expression in progress. So, all truly great Classical art, like the discoveries of physical scientific progress, alike, occurs only as by actions being generated in the actually future instants beyond the present of the onrushing future, as by Johann Sebastian Bach.[fn_5] Hence, the inevitable failure inhering in the attempted simulations presented by the compositions of Franz Liszt and Richard Wagner, as contrasted to the achievements of Johann Sebastian Bach and his followers in the development of what may be distinguished as the “Classical school” of composition and its performance. The same principled fact coincides with the same manner in which William Shakespeare created and displayed his own most remarkable character of “Chorus” in his King Henry V.[fn_6]

The particularly notable aspects of Shakespeare’s actions on that account, are several. First, most obviously, Shakespeare had based himself on the ancient Greek Classical model of “The Chorus,” emphatically borrowing from the ancient Greek model of a chorus operating from “seeing from behind their own masks,” while passing their collective judgment on the characters in the play, otherwise: like honest judges pitting their collective consciences against the law-breaker occupying a seat of great power, as might be said of President Barack Obama, or of both Obama’s predecessor in office, and Obama himself, each to be charged with the high crime of overturning what had been already proven to have been the precious Glass-Steagall law.

Unfortunately, the underlying meaning of the Glass-Steagall law, as underlying the U.S. Administration of President George Washington and the sheer genius of the virtually martyred Alexander Hamilton, had been lost with the advent of the morally disturbed President Thomas Jefferson and numerous among Jefferson’s followers. It would have been a careless quality which would have been expressed in an objection to my use of the term “martyred” here. The notion that injustice is not a violation of an expression of the true liar, would be the mark of an offender’s disposition for a deep moral corruption of himself as the believer: the corruption which is the adoption of a policy of high-ranking folly practiced in the mightily abused license of the privilege of the state, or other power, to lie. The highest of crimes perpetrated under the nominal authority of the state, or in some comparable case, are those which perpetrate crimes under the adopted authority of the convenience of the rule of merely secular forms of government per se. Indeed, most among the known such governments from history, were either purely evil, or malefactors of a somewhat lesser degree. The point is, that, for persons who are competent in their shaping of their intentions, truth can not be merely negative.

NASA Goddard Laboratory for Atmospheres

“The ‘fire-like’ upgrading which can be measured in terms of increase of the energy-flux-density of the activities of the human species, is the most essential feature of beneficial ‘evolutionary effect’ on which the continued success of our species depends.” Shown: (above) The Sun, with its thermonuclear reactor; (below) MIT’s Alcator C-Mod Tokamak (interior).

Wikimedia Commons/Mike Garrett

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

I.

The Characteristics

The distinction of the human species from all others known to us presently, lies within the development of qualitative, more than merely quantitative, upward transformation of human society. While the human species preserves the essential characteristics of that species, the quality of fire-like upgrading of the abilities of our species, is the most essential feature of beneficial “evolutionary effect” on which the continued success of our species depends. Those effects have been essentially qualitative, rather than merely quantitative. As I have emphasized in my reports in other locations, the characteristics of the upward evolution of the capabilities of the essentially fixed “design” of the member of our species, has the effect of evolutionary development into a higher order of our species in its efficient effects.

Those specific kinds of effects “reside” in the most unique distinction of mankind from all other presently known species. The evolution is not “simply biological,” but “also intellectual.” That is to emphasize that the uniqueness of the human species lies in its inherently revolutionary self-development, as when it is not trapped into those kinds of habits of insanity which would be normal behavior among all other presently known “animal” species, that including mammals generally, otherwise.

I now explain, accordingly, as follows.

Somewhere, as if to say, in the course of time, the membership of our human species degenerated in quality, that done by means of the degeneration of human societies into an apparently intrinsic separation of human overlords and their human subjects.

That separation had the correlated effect of quenching the naturally higher quality of effects which corresponds to “the noëtic effect” in the individual’s and societies’ human mind, as that effect were otherwise “natural” to the member of the human species. Nineteenth-century-rooted cases such as those of Bernhard Riemann,[fn_7] Max Planck, and Albert Einstein, are excellent choices of cases which illustrate the role of what were appropriately named “the noëtic effect” otherwise properly known as the intimately inseparable qualities of both human artistic and scientific creativity.

That, which we must define here as the “truly human creativity” of the mind itself, is the naturally available, essential distinction of those truly noëtic powers of the human individual, which are to be distinguished from the human beings who have been degraded into the brutish categories of interacting virtual “masters and slaves” of the types which are typified by the quality of fraud incarnate intrinsically in such cases as those of H.G. Wells and Bertrand Russell in their time, and by the more recent reductionists’ type of the respective likenesses of the British or brutish, of either, once more, the current British Queen of England or the brutish harvest of such “merely practical” creatures as the resident Wall Street “vegetables” presently.[fn_8]

Indeed, since the death of U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and with the succession to the brutishly crude Harry S Truman, there has been a predominantly downward moral and intellectual trend in the political course of both the United States and Europe, in particular; the assassination of President John F. Kennedy has marked an insistently prevalent trend, downwards, in intellectual and moral life, an accelerating decline which has reached a virtual nadir with the downward-plunging, accelerating loss of intellect, of morals, and conditions of life, alike, as typified in the incumbencies of such wretchedly evil U.S. Presidencies under the influence of the plunging moral illiteracy which is expressed in the “Green Disease” of 2001-2013, under the reigns of loutish President George W. Bush, and brutish Barack Obama.

The typical expression of this plunging trend, has now reached that kind of nadir which has been typified by mankind’s arrival at the threat of an extinction of the human species inherent in such specific influences as the current Anglo-Dutch regime and the nadir now reached by the Bush-Obama U.S. Presidencies. The essence of that current situation and its inherently, immediately present threats to the continued existence of the human species, is now the pending menace of a threatened extinction of the human species caused as under the effects of an accelerating trend toward human thermonuclear extinction under the combination of, chiefly, the British empire, its Saudi accomplices, and the plunge of the U.S.A. under the manifestly, wildly evil trend of the influences of the most recent Bush and Obama Presidencies.

Wikimedia Commons

Among the great achievements of the 15th-Century Golden Renaissance, and its exemplar Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, were Columbus’s voyages to the Americas. This painting is “Columbus on the Santa Maria in 1492,” by Emanuel Leutze (1855).

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

The America Principle:

The central issue to be considered in the light of such trends, has several converging implications for a hopeful future of mankind. The best indicators of a betterment in trends and conditions have been typified by what became known as the age of the “Golden Renaissance,” a moment in history which has been typified by the powerfully extended influence of the Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, who, among his great achievements, generated the impetus which had led Captain Christopher Columbus to his famous crossings of the Atlantic, and, thus, to the ultimately leading consequence of the establishment of the United States of America. Despite all else, this impetus brought about the establishment of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, until the point at which the Dutch tyranny had crushed that precursor of a United States of America, but which had, in principle, re-emerged with a massive set of implications for the world at large, up through the achievements of President John F. Kennedy’s (and his brother’s) quenched life, deaths which set the destiny of our republic spinning into a net downward direction from which it has never yet recovered, to the present date.

Nonetheless, the direction of the future United States, despite the crushing of the richly abundant achievements of the Massachusetts settlement while it “still lived,” set a spark which had never yet been actually quenched until, perhaps, the most recent, evil developments under British lackeys such as Presidents Bush and Obama. This fact has implications which are, here and now, of the greatest importance for both this republic and the nations of the world generally.

II.

The True Principle of

Human Nature

It is true, that the ability to forecast the future, as I have defined the future here, this far, is still, currently, relatively rare in fact. The potential for such foresight is potentially universal, excepting the fact that the existing cultures of society tend to crush such mental capabilities through the effects of customary drills, by means of which societies this far appear to have dulled the relevant “noëtic cutting edge of reason.” This “crushing process,” often identifiable as “the desire to be accepted” among one’s peers, is typical of the oppression which I had experienced, and deeply resented, as a child, and, more emphatically so, as an adolescent student, and young adult.

A useful name for the “crushing of the intellectual spirit,” is “conformity with those rules of behavior” which are imposed by the environment of daily life. Some among us resist that sort of imposed conformities. The freedom we seek, when we are in defiance of popular and related sorts of unjust “conformities,” enables us to enjoy a broader freedom, a freedom to experience a less confining domain of experience, and, thus, also, one to enjoy both the pains incurred and the better chances for actual experiences of foresight than most others. The basis for that relatively greater “freedom to think,” is usually to be expected during childhood and adolescence, often as the result of what may be fairly identified as an “habituated resistance to destructive conformities.” Such “refusers” are the more likely to be creative thinkers, as this is typified by such cases as Johannes Kepler, Pierre de Fermat, Gottfried Leibniz, Bernhard Riemann, et al., and Max Planck, and Albert Einstein.

The broader range of “refusers” is divided between those cases which are devoted to a sense of obligation to the pleasure derived from the promotion of the human good, as contrasted to the case of what is essentially an “asocial refuser,” such as one of the Wall Street types, and those others who typify the predatory cases.

‘The Prospect Now Before Us!’

The most regrettable influence to which children and young adults might have been subjected by habituation, had been, in my own time spent as a child, adolescent, and young adult, a hated submission to that which they were induced to adopt as if it had been truly of their own “independent discovery,” when it had not been a discovery at all, but essentially a fear-driven act of submission motivated by the induced “desire to be accepted.”

Put aside the customary excuses passed in the name of “being accepted.” There is an essential difference between knowing and merely believing. There are, in fact, modes of influence which challenge the student (for example) to make an actual discovery which had been prompted, often enough, by the student’s own life-experience, as in the cases of such as Max Planck and Albert Einstein, or such of their predecessors as the Bernhard Riemann presenting his habilitation dissertation in the presence of Carl Friedrich Gauss—especially that wonderful single, concluding sentence with which Riemann had, on that occasion, sweetly damned all foolish mere mathematicians.

[fn_1]. EIR, June 21, 2013.[back to text for fn_1]

[fn_2]. EIR, Aug. 23, 2013.[back to text for fn_2]

[fn_3]. EIR, Aug. 30, 2013.[back to text for fn_3]

[fn_4]. The discovery of the experiencing of earthquakes by pigs, as in China, and the experiencing of the same earthquakes by man, both at the same time and later, is not a different earthquake, but is the difference in the mode and timing of the sensing of the wave-frequency of earthquakes as compared with the relationships among the two indicated, or more, species.[back to text for fn_4]

[fn_5]. Hence the failure in Bruno Walter’s relevant direction of Schubert’s Ninth Symphony, in his relevant post-World War II performance, as contrasted to Furtwängler’s extraordinary, truly living direction under the same named title.[back to text for fn_5]

[fn_6]. Like a true jury, the Shakespeare Chorus passes judgment on the alleged violation of true law. The might of kings, emperors, and their like, is placed above the tyrants and ordinary statesmen, alike, all that under the law of judgment by that “higher court” which is the same as Shakespeare’s Chorus.[back to text for fn_6]

[fn_7]. Habilitation dissertation.[back to text for fn_7]

[fn_8]. There is no actual creativity inherent in the sheer brutishness of either Wall Street or Anglo-Dutch practices. Neither cheating, nor stealing, are humanly creative.[back to text for fn_8]