Executive Intelligence Review, Volume 46, Number 13, April 5, 2019

- Cover

- Masthead

- PDF edition Table of Contents — Volume 46, Number 13, April 5, 2019

- EDITORIAL MUELLER REPORT: NO COLLUSION Time of Reckoning for Coup Plotters Has Arrived! by Harley Schlanger

- I. Moving the World from the Stars

- Open the Age of Reason

- President Donald J. Trump Is Boldly Putting Americans Back on the Moon

- Private Initiative for Colonizing the Moon and Mars by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. (June 1985)

- II. China-U.S.-Italy

- Italy Enhances Positive Seismic Shifts in Europe by Claudio Celani

- China to Create the World’s Largest City Cluster by William Jones

- III. Exonerate LaRouche!

- MUELLER MAGIC IMPLODES President Trump Wants To Put Women on Mars! by Barbara Boyd

- The False Charges Behind the Conviction of Lyndon LaRouche

- ‘THANK YOU FOR YOUR VIGILANCE’ Rhode Island House of Representatives Honors the Memory of Lyndon LaRouche

- ZEPP-LAROUCHE WEBCAST Collapse of Russiagate Exposes the British Hand Behind Attempted Coup in U.S.A.

Our Moon-Mars Mission

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: ©2019 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.

EIR Contents

www.larouchepub.com — Volume 46, Number 13, April 5, 2019

Cover This Week

NASA/Pat Rawlings

Artist’s concept: Earth’s Moon, just 3 days away, is a good place to test hardware and operations for a human mission to Mars.

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

OUR MOON-MARS MISSION

3 EDITORIAL

MUELLER REPORT: NO COLLUSION

Time of Reckoning for Coup Plotters Has Arrived!

by Harley Schlanger

I. MOVING THE WORLD FROM THE STARS

6 Open the Age of Reason

7 WHITE HOUSE FACT SHEET

President Donald J. Trump Is Boldly Putting Americans Back on the Moon

8 Private Initiative for Colonizing the Moon and Mars

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

August 9, 1985

II. CHINA-U.S.-ITALY

20 Italy Enhances Positive Seismic Shifts in Europe

by Claudio Celani

23 China to Create the World’s Largest City Cluster

by William Jones

III. EXONERATE LAROUCHE!

27 MUELLER MAGIC IMPLODES

President Trump Wants to Put Women on Mars!

by Barbara Boyd

34 The False Charges Behind the Conviction of Lyndon LaRouche

Exposed by Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark and LaRouche’s Trial Attorney, Odin Anderson

39 ‘THANK YOU FOR YOUR VIGILANCE’

Rhode Island House of Representatives Honors the Memory of Lyndon LaRouche

42 ZEPP LAROUCHE WEBCAST

Collapse of Russiagate Exposes the British Hand Behind Attempted Coup in U.S.A.

EDITORIAL

MUELLER REPORT: NO COLLUSION

Time of Reckoning

for Coup Plotters Has Arrived!

by Harley Schlanger

C-SPAN

President Trump at the Van Andel Arena in Grand Rapids, Michigan, March 22, 2019.

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

March 29—“After three years of lies and smears and slander, the Russia hoax is finally dead. The collusion delusion is over.”

With these words, President Donald Trump opened a raucous rally in front of more than 15,000 enthusiastic supporters in Grand Rapids, Michigan on March 28, celebrating the release of the report by Special Counsel Robert Mueller on March 22. According to the summary submitted to Congress by Attorney General William Barr, Mueller found no evidence of collusion, nor of obstruction of justice, thus vindicating Trump’s repeated claim that the investigation was a “witch hunt.”

In his remarks, Trump did not merely proclaim vindication. He issued a call to action, asking those at the rally to join him in defeating the anti-Trump coup plotters, who are foolishly continuing their campaign to remove him from office. He forcefully denounced leading Democrats, naming Representatives Adam Schiff and Jerrold Nadler, who are both using Committees in the U.S. House of Representatives to expand their fake investigations. Trump said they “need to decide whether they will continue to defraud the public,” now that Russiagate has been exposed as a fraud. He also excoriated the media, and intelligence officials who had served under President Obama, such as former CIA Director John Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, suggesting that both of them could be prosecuted for lying, and using their positions to illegally unleash the witch hunt.

In an interview with Fox television’s Sean Hannity before the rally, Trump stated that he will soon release all documents related to the attack on him, including those compiled by the FBI, which used the fictional dossier written by “former” British MI6 operative Christopher Steele, to get surveillance warrants from the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court, as well as the “302” reports on FBI interrogations, text messages, and emails from the coup plotters. President Trump said:

I have plans to declassify and release. We must never let this happen to another president. I hope they don’t get away with it. . . . It’s an investigation that should never have happened. [On the role of corrupt, leading officials of the FBI who were part of the coup apparat:] They wanted to do a subversion. . . . It was treason. It was really treason.

That Trump survived the persistent and vicious assault against him is in itself quite remarkable. He had to endure years of media leaks and lies, attacks on his family, his businesses, and his associates, many of whom were threatened and bullied, to get them to turn against him, as his former attorney Michael Cohen did. Mueller also secured fraudulent indictments of “Russians” for cyber meddling, which will never be tested in court, and convictions for “process crimes” unrelated to the assignment given him. Yet, in his final report, Mueller was forced to admit there was no proof that Trump colluded with foreign efforts to steal the 2016 election.

This conclusion is a harsh blow to the anti-Trump fanatics committed to his impeachment, leaving them reeling, stammering that they will “go further” than the special counsel in their hysterical resolve to overturn their defeat by Trump in the 2016 election. The Schiller Institute’s Helga Zepp-LaRouche, who has taken a leading role in exposing the fraud behind the attempted coup, said in a webcast on March 28, a transcription of which is in this issue of EIR, that it is not surprising that Trump’s opponents will continue, as the report “did not lead to the desired result,” i.e., his removal! But now is no time for complacency, she added. Instead, “Now is the time for reckoning” for those who ran the attempted coup.

‘Who and Why?’ Must Now Be Answered

In that same webcast, Zepp-LaRouche made clear that she is not talking about revenge in pursuing the coup plotters, but of something more profound, which is a “matter of war and peace.” The attempted putsch against Trump was never simply about disgruntled supporters of Hillary Clinton seeking revenge for her electoral defeat. It was launched by the highest levels of British intelligence, in collaboration with accomplices from the Bush and Obama-Clinton networks, to prevent Trump from overturning the post-Cold War consensus of using geopolitical confrontation to protect the British-directed unilateral world order, which was imposed following the collapse of the Soviet Union. This imperial order is being challenged by the rise of China, and its Belt-and-Road Initiative, which is adding nations as collaborators every day, and which is occurring as the London-based trans-Atlantic financial and trading system is following the Soviet system into the trash heap of history. [box: VIPS Leader Larry Johnson: British Intelligence Drove Russiagate Coup Attempt]

It is precisely this “systemic crisis” of the London-Wall Street financial system which Lyndon LaRouche warned of, and to which he directed the policy solutions contained in his Four Laws—for Glass-Steagall bank separation, national banking, credit for infrastructure and manufacturing, and a science driver based on a revived space program and the development of fusion energy.

In his presidential campaign, and throughout his presidency, Trump made it clear that he wants to lead the United States out of this collapsing order, which has been defined by endless wars, regime-change, false-flag provocations, and a bubble economy. That bubble has again built up a level of unsustainable debt, which could implode at any time. Rather than preparing to go to war with China and Russia to defend a financially and morally bankrupt trans-Atlantic financial system, as the imperial neocons intend, Trump has said that he wants to achieve a peaceful, mutually beneficial relationship with the two other leading powers. He emphasized this again in his Grand Rapids rally, saying the U.S. should have a “great relationship with Russia and China,” but that “fake news” turned it into Russiagate.

That Trump understands the British role is evident in tweets he sent out March 18, when he retweeted comments from William Craddick of Disobedient Media. Craddick tweeted that “Russiagate was designed in part to help the UK counter Russian influence by baiting the United States into taking a hard line against them. . . . Just another episode of the Great Game.” A second retweet by Trump was a Craddick retweet of a comment from 2020 Democratic Party presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard, who wrote:

Short-sighted politicians and media pundits who’ve spent the last 2 years accusing Trump as a Putin puppet have brought us the expensive new Cold War & arms race. How? Because Trump now does everything he can to prove he’s not a Putin puppet—even if it brings us closer to nuclear war.

Up until now, other than Mrs. LaRouche and a handful of other courageous individuals, such as former National Security Agency (NSA) Technical Director and whistleblower Bill Binney and his associates, the assertion in the Mueller report that the Russians did interfere in the U.S. election, has gone unchallenged. In her webcast comments, Mrs. LaRouche identified the escalation against Venezuela—led by National Security Advisor John Bolton, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Vice President Mike Pence, members of both parties in Congress, and the same media hacks who are still smarting from being slapped down by the Mueller report—as part of the effort to trap Trump into a position on Venezuela against Russia and China. She said that “. . . unless this apparatus is dismantled, they will find new ways to entrap” Trump, calling the Venezuela escalation “the continuation of the coup against Trump, ‘with other colors,’ ” a reference to the launching of “color revolutions,” as in Ukraine, as regime change operations under the cover of “humanitarian” efforts.

In an interview on radio station KTKK in Salt Lake City this week, Bill Binney told this author that he fully endorsed Mrs. LaRouche’s insistence that the perpetrators from the UK intelligence community and the anglophile “shadow government” in the United States must be “held accountable.” If this does not happen, he said, “they will do it again, lying as they did to get us into war in Vietnam (in the 1960s), and with the lies about weapons of mass destruction to justify the overthrow of Saddam and mass murder in Iraq,” and again with the lies from the “British and former CIA Director John Brennan about Russian hacking.”

Binney has conducted the most thorough forensic investigation into the charge that the Russians hacked the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Clinton campaign computers—which is at the heart of Russiagate—refuting it on every level. He said he knew from August 2016 that the charge was a fake. Instead of hacking by Russia, he proved that the data leak was the result of an “inside job,” with a thumb drive or similar device. Yet, despite his known expertise in this area, he was never called to testify by Mueller, and his reports have been blacked out of the major media.

Binney said the intelligence agencies must be “cleaned up—President Trump has the potential to do this, to give the intelligence agencies a double lobotomy!” If this is not done, they will continue to “build their empire of destruction, with full support of a submissive media.”

While the combative spirit shown by Trump in Grand Rapids is a sign that he is up to the fight, the question now remains whether the American people will respond to the call to action and join with the LaRouche movement to use this opportunity to take down the corrupt British-U.S. networks responsible for war, chaos and poverty.

VIPS Leader Larry Johnson: British Intelligence Drove Russiagate Coup Attempt

March 29—Patriot and former CIA officer Larry Johnson, now active with the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), posted the following remarks in Col. (ret.) Pat Lang’s Sic Semper Tyrannis blog on March 27:

The conspiracy against Donald Trump, in my opinion, originated with British intelligence and persons connected with the Clinton Campaign. The provocation/dangle of George Papadopoulos was the result of electronic intercepts by GCHQ [the signals intelligence/electronic surveillance headquarters of British Intelligence] targeting people working on the Trump campaign. The collection effort generated hundreds of highly classified “SIGINT” messages that were disseminated in the U.S. intelligence community. Those messages led to the unmasking of more than 100 Americans whose names appeared in those reports. And this “intel” dump from the Brits became the predicate for launching a counter intelligence investigation of Donald Trump and his campaign.

Johnson gave that precise identification of the origination of the assault on the presidency in his posting, “Time for Clapper to Go Under Oath.” The posting makes clear Johnson is not speaking as someone “out in the cold.”

When the tale of the plot to destroy Donald Trump’s candidacy and Presidency is told, Jim Clapper will be proven as a key player in the conspiracy. Clapper was not a passive observer. I am told by friends who had direct dealings with Clapper during his tenure as the Director of National Intelligence that he was helping coordinate the activities of the CIA, the NSA and the FBI in the collection and dissemination of information on Trump and his associates. [back to text]

I. Moving the World from the Stars

Open the Age of Reason

NASA

Harrison Schmitt poses beside the U.S. flag on Apollo 17 mission on December 11, 1972.

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

There, in the stars, lies mankind’s entry into the long-awaited Age of Reason, when our species sheds at last the cultural residue of the beast.

—Lyndon LaRouche, 1985

March 31—In unveiling his five-year U.S. manned Moon mission and the succeeding international Moon colonization and Moon-Mars missions, immediately after the collapse of the “Russiagate” coup against him one week ago, President Donald Trump acted exactly as Lyndon LaRouche might have advised him—if only LaRouche were still alive to see these signal victories for his ideas.

The British beast may have suffered a big setback, but it is still active and still working to shred the U.S. Constitution. We must go on to inflict its final defeat. But at just the same time, we must raise the spirit and the standpoint of our fellow men and women, up to the level at which many of the Earth’s problems can be solved, and the level at which many of the Earth’s quarrels disappear. The level of the Solar System, and then of our Milky Way Galaxy which governs it.

The Moon-Mars mission, which is now active United States policy after Lyndon and Helga LaRouche, Krafft Ehricke, and other great leaders have promoted it for decades, will raise up the human species to what LaRouche called a revolutionary new “platform.” Those who would bring this about, should study the interrelated ways in which science, industry and economy, as also education and culture, must interlace and unite in a well-designed crash program, to cause economic shock-waves of sudden advances. This not merely in the United States and other spacefaring powers, but in countries without space programs as well. LaRouche spelled this out in his 1985 “Private Initiative for Colonizing the Moon and Mars,” reprinted in the following pages.

He began by estimating that for at least the next 50 years, “all scientific and technological progress will be shaped primarily by the interrelationship among three presently well-defined frontiers of scientific research: (1) controlled thermonuclear fusion, (2) coherently directed electromagnetic impulses, and (3) optical biophysics.” Yet these are precisely the three core tasks required for interplanetary colonization! As LaRouche’s scientific and physical-economic reasoning progresses through his dense, 12-page article, it becomes clear that nothing could benefit the world’s economy more than commitment to this Moon-Mars mission—which today should be combined with the policy of Strategic Defense of Earth from extra-planetary threats.

Economic shock-waves will spread from special toolmaking workshops within industry, devoted to production at the most-advanced frontiers of science, as combined with rises and spikes in physical (not financial) levels of profit. From this orientation, it becomes clear that our “make-anything” industry which we call the auto industry, will be revived not simply as it was in the past. It will build modular fission and fusion reactors among myriad other new products, while inventing and using tools based on scientific principles still unknown today.

Crash-programs always depend upon young people. During the Apollo program, NASA’s average age was 27. Flight controller Gene Kranz was an “elder statesman” at 35. (Now the average age is 52.)

Today, clearly, we have a great task ahead to rescue our youth from the effects of pernicious electronic entertainments, total miseducation, and drugs of all sorts. It dwarfs the problem Franklin Roosevelt tackled with his CCC camps. But having come this far, will we let that stop us—that or any other obstacle?

President Donald J. Trump Is Boldly Putting Americans Back on the Moon

The following was released on March 26, 2019 by the White House. The statement is available here.

This time, we will not only plant our flag and leave our footprint, we will establish a foundation for an eventual mission to Mars and perhaps, someday, to many worlds beyond.

—President Donald J. Trump

ACCELERATING AMERICA’S SPACE EXPLORATION: President Donald J. Trump is setting a bold goal to put Americans back on the Moon by 2024.

• President Trump has received five recommendations, unanimously approved by his National Space Council, to accelerate America’s space exploration program.

• President Trump also received four recommendations on streamlining export control regulations that followed a year-long review.

• The NASA Administrator will provide an update on the implementation of Space Policy Directive-1 (SPD-1) and the recommendations at the next Space Council meeting.

• The United States will seek to land on the Moon’s South Pole by 2024, establish a sustainable human presence on the Moon by 2028, and chart a future path for Mars exploration.

• NASA’s lunar presence will focus on science, resource management, and risk reduction for future missions to Mars.

• NASA will create a Moon-to-Mars Mission Directorate and make all necessary efforts to achieve Exploration Mission-1, a foundational uncrewed mission around the Moon.

• Exploration Mission-1 will take place no later than 2020 and a crewed mission around the Moon, Exploration Mission-2, will take place no later than 2022.

• NASA will unleash American industry, including through public-private partnerships, to enhance innovation and the sustainability of its space activities.

• To implement SPD-1, NASA will continue to improve its structure and management, and improve cost and schedule performance, seeking legislative authorization as necessary.

• The United States will engage with international partners to enable a sustainable lunar exploration and development program.

DARING AGAIN: President Trump is building a space program worthy of our great Nation and the American spirit.

• An American has not walked on the Moon in 47 years, but President Trump is working to change that.

• To achieve this goal, President Trump is taking action to ensure that American astronauts get to their destination quickly and sustainably.

REIGNITING AMERICA’S SPACE LEGACY: President Trump is keeping his promise to restore America’s proud legacy of leadership in space.

• These recommendations follow President Trump’s bold call for America to go back to the Moon and establish a foundation for an eventual mission to Mars.

• In December 2017, President Trump signed SPD-1, “Reinvigorating America’s Human Space Exploration Program.”

• The President’s Space Policy calls for NASA to lead an innovative space program with commercial and international partners.

• Americans will return to the Moon for long-term exploration, followed by missions to Mars and beyond.

• President Trump has signed three additional SPDs to restore American leadership in space.

June 1985

Private Initiative for

Colonizing the Moon and Mars

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

The following memorandum, reprinted from EIR, Vol. 12, No. 31, August 9, 1985, elaborates a proposal announced by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. during the June 15-16, 1985 Krafft Ehricke Memorial Conference, sponsored by the Schiller Institute and the Fusion Energy Foundation. In his June 15th keynote address, LaRouche argued for the adoption of a Moon-Mars colonization project as the guiding mission-assignment for implementation of the SDI and its “spill overs.” During the discussion period, he proposed that this approach to fostering scientific progress be spearheaded by an international private initiative. For further background, see the transcript [fn_1] of the keynote address.

It can be safely estimated, that during the coming fifty years or longer, all scientific and technological progress will be shaped primarily by the interrelationship among three presently well-defined frontiers of scientific research: 1) Controlled thermonuclear fusion, 2) coherently directed electromagnetic impulses, and 3) optical biophysics. Advances in other classifications of technological progress will be indispensable auxiliaries to the application of the three primary classes of developments, but the overall technological progress of mankind will be directed and bounded by the advances effected in these three cited, primary classifications.

The implications of these primary technologies are shown most immediately, most clearly, and most exhaustively, by examining the interdependent role all three perform together in interplanetary colonization. Thermonuclear fusion is the preferred mode for powered space-flight, and is absolutely indispensable for maintaining a permanent colony on Mars. Such coherently directed energy-modes as lasers and particle beams, powered by thermonuclear fusion, are indispensable to constructing and maintaining a permanent colony on that planet. So-called biotechnology is but an indispensable auxiliary for the optical biophysics needed for such colonization. Interplanetary colonization draws upon virtually all of the potentialities of these interrelated technologies, as no other foreseeable choice of application does so to approximately the same degree.

Therefore, the best way to achieve breakthroughs in each and all of the kinds of applications of technological progress over the coming fifty years or so, is to create a mission-oriented, crash-program task-force, assigned to developing all of the technologies required for beginning the permanent colonization of Mars by some preassigned target-date, such as 2010 A.D. In other words, develop all of the technologies required for the Strategic Defense Initiative, as a by-product of a Moon-Mars-colonization mission-assignment. This applies to not only the SDI, but to every other area of application. In sum, there is no technological breakthrough likely during more than fifty years ahead, the which is not best obtained as a by-product of such a Moon-Mars mission-assignment.

We propose, therefore, to put all of our “science-eggs” in one “basket.” There is no advancement in the general level of technology which is not subsumed by the Moon-Mars mission-assignment? Very well, for a period of perhaps the next twenty years, let us write “Moon-Mars-colonization mission-assignment” wherever present custom would have us write the words “science” or “technological progress.” Every important breakthrough accomplished during that period, or longer, will be either implicitly required for accomplishment of the mission-assignment, or will occur as a by-product of that mission-assignment. Once all the technology needed for a permanent colonization of Mars is completed, perhaps twenty years ahead, we shall then shift the mission-assignment, to a next, more ambitious task to go into construction during the middle of the next century, such as, perhaps, the “earth-forming” of Saturn’s largest moon Titan.

NASA

Humanity’s next “mission-assignment”: the colonization of the Moon and Mars. With the technologies developed for Mars, the cultivation of the Sahara and Gobi deserts on Earth become relatively child’s play. Shown here is NASA’s Viking 1, on Mars in 1976.

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

Let us henceforth define scientific progress as an ordered succession of ever-more-ambitious grand-scale mission-assignments. Let “science” be defined in such a task-oriented way during each generation. Let “science” signify both the current grand-scale crash-program mission-assignment in progress and the work of defining the successor to such a mission-assignment.

This is not an altogether novel proposal. The emergence of modem European science, from the work of Nikolaus of Cusa during the middle of the fifteenth century, until France’s Jean-Baptiste Colbert assembled such scientists as Huygens and Leibniz to design the industrial revolution during the 1670s, implicitly adopted geometry and astrophysics as the mission-assignment responsible for all scientific and related progress during those two centuries. The next century and a half, into the work of the 1794-1814 École Polytechnique, on coal-fired forms of steam-power for machinery, had the mission-assignment of creating the industrial revolution. Chemistry and electrodynamics, the growing infants of the eighteenth century, became the mission-assignment of nineteenth-century scientific progress. The creation of an economy based upon sub-molecular physics, the child of nineteenth-century progress in electrodynamics and chemistry, emerged as the mission-assignment of the twentieth century.

Today, we can foresee the clear possibility that colonies totalling millions of persons will exist on Mars by the middle of the coming century. With sufficient density of energy per capita, with lasers and similar devices as tools, and with aid of optical biophysics, millions of colonists will live, work, and produce trees and foodstuffs, in artificial environments in the cities and greenhouses of Mars. With such technologies developed for Mars, the colonization of the Sahara and Gobi on Earth become relatively child’s play. That obvious example, illustrates the general functional relationship between the Moon-Mars mission-assignment and the by-products supplied to solve problems of life on Earth. That is clearly humanity’s next mission-assignment.

There is no possibility for the Strategic Defense Initiative which is not implicitly subsumed by the Moon-Mars mission-assignment. There is no advancement in agricultural or industrial technology, perhaps during the coming fifty years, which is not implicitly subsumed as a by-product of that same mission-assignment. That latter fact, is key to our proposal that the Moon-Mars-colonization mission-assignment be undertaken as an international private initiative.

The Practicality of a Private Initiative

In 1953, Wernher von Braun argued:

Since the actual development of the long-range liquid rocket, it has been apparent that true space travel cannot be attained by any back-yard inventor, no matter how ingenious he might be. It can only be achieved by the co-ordinated might of scientists, technicians, and organizers belonging to nearly every branch of modem science and industry. [fn_2]

With those words themselves, we can imagine no competent objection more than thirty years after that “Introduction” to the 1953 edition of the book was written. However, we do object to a misinterpretation of those words, to the effect that only governmental initiative could begin such a project. Von Braun himself would certainly have been among the first to point out that the accomplishments of Peenemünde were a working out of conceptions already defined as a privately supported undertaking of the collaborators of Dr. Hermann Oberth. If one compares relevant features of Fritz Lang’s 1929 film, The Woman in the Moon, for which Dr. Oberth was technical adviser, with a U.S. rocket-launch today, we have a sense of what private initiative had already accomplished before governments moved into the field.

Attention to the details of ordinary scientific work shows us how private initiative continues directly into those largescale, government-supported projects we associate with the past forty years’ work in rocketry. This shows us how private initiative can undertake, and profit from, the launching of the Moon-Mars-colonization mission-assignment today.

Scientific experiments require appropriate materials and instruments. In modem science, the instruments are assembled largely in tool-makers’ shops associated with scientific research-centers. The scientist carries his notion of an experimental design into the machine-shop, and connives with his friends the machinists to whip up instruments which meet the specifications. By extending this traditional practice to successively larger scales, we create what we call a “crash program.”

The first step, from ordinary research-practice into the emergence of a “crash program,” is the assignment of small portions of capacity of industrial firms to do research and development leading into pilot production of the new species of materials and instruments foreseen as required for completion of some mission-assignment. Instead of waiting until a scientific design is proven academically, before producing the kinds of materials and instruments needed to construct something according to that design, we develop the capability for producing such kinds of materials and instruments at the same time that the scientists are discovering the refinements of principle needed to design the objects which will require such kinds of materials and instruments.

What we wish to avoid, is the situation in which our scientists have proven the feasibility of designing which we very much desire, but that desirable object can not be produced until we first create the facilities for producing the kinds of materials and other components required. So, we begin to develop the lines of production needed at the same time that we launch the scientific research which will require such species of components. For the latter purpose, we assemble some patriotic and otherwise more far-seeing industrialists, and ask each to assign a comer of his facilities to working out the problems of prototype production of one or more of the species of materials and components we know we shall require. We ask far-seeing investors and contributors to assist us in funding the employment of scientists and others, in laboratories, perhaps by investing in joint-ventures of industrialists and·scientific teams.

For example, we know that the next general advancement in industrial technology, for the Moon-Mars assignment and for production generally, will include new qualities of ceramics, tending to replace steel as the material of choice. We know this chiefly for two reasons. First, we know that the next leap in industrial productivity will require modal energy-densities in production approximately four times those prevailing today. Second, we also know that high-temperature fusion processes and use of coherently directed electromagnetic pulses will make possible such increases in energy-density, and will require new kinds of materials suited for operations at such temperature-levels. Therefore, far-sighted industrialists will consider it prudent to assign some comer of their total capacities to research and development aimed at producing and working such materials.

Among the auxiliary technologies we require, are included certain qualitative advances in data-processing techniques. True parallel processing is needed for automatic control at the very high speeds required by applications of the primary technologies. We need to develop analog-digital computer-systems, whose analog component starts from the Leibnizian standpoint of Dr. Vannevar Bush’s differential analyzer, but goes beyond that into the geometries of the Gauss-Riemann manifold: we require that this be done electronically. On the latter, we must free ourselves from the cumbersome algorithms which digital computers require, and from certain mathematical absurdities intrinsic to the Cartesian manifold of arithmetic operations; otherwise, our instrumentation will not be capable of the speed and quality of response we require for foreseeable and important applications of primary technologies. There are absolute limits to the physical potential of digital computers on these accounts, which not even parallel processing can truly overcome: we need the higher speeds intrinsic to synthetical-geometrical substitutes for cumbersome algorithms.

These two examples illustrate the point, that, to a large degree, required new species of materials and other components are presently foreseeable. At least, we can foresee the direction which development-work must take, if we are to have, in time, the qualities of materials and other components we shall require.

Once we have actually assembled new objects, using new species of materials and other components, we must begin to move into larger-scale production. It is at this point in the sequence of events, that the sheer mass of a “crash program” emerges. At this point, the scientists as well as the specialists drawn from the pilot-projects in new materials and instruments move into production on a larger scale, to the effect that a very large segment of national economies is now at the disposal of the scientific teams. Now, science is directly driving technological progress in the economy as a whole: a mature form of “crash program.” It is in this “mature” phase, that expenditures on the scale of governmental budgets are required.

What has happened in this process of expansion of the initial research and development to large-scale production, is, essentially, that the scope of the scientist’s experimental work has been expanded from the scale of the university’s machine-shop, to the scale of large-scale production. That process of expansion of scope of scientific experimentation, is the essence of a “crash program.” With certain exceptions, as we shall indicate, the private initiative belongs to the intermediate phase indicated above. At least, this is the case with respect to a project of the scope of a Moon-Mars-colonization mission-assignment. This does not preclude some spill-over of intermediate-phase development-work into larger-scale production within the private sector as such. It must be expected that numerous among the by-products of the intermediate phase will have an economical role to play in the private sector itself.

For example, designs for nuclear reactors as small as 15 MW already exist, designs which permit multiples of such reactors to be combined in a single, modularly expandable complex. There is no good reason that such a reactor could not be installed on a site within a year, rather than the minimum of approximately four years required today, if standardized elements, such as pre-stressed concrete elements, were adopted to make this possible. Usually, folks suggest that only governments could make such programs possible; on the contrary, if private firms decided it were in their common interest to do this, it would happen

There is no way to increase productivity generally without such proliferation of nuclear-energy plants. The most important limiting factor in efforts to increase productivity, is the energy-density of production, as measured in both energy-density per-capita, and energy-density per-square-kilometer of the class of land-usage involved. Since we can not reach the level of technology needed to launch a thermonuclear-fusion economy without large-scale increases in average energy-density of production, and since no such expansion could be accomplished without proliferation of nuclear energy, the human race is pretty much doomed to starve on the scrap-heap of “post-industrial society” unless a revolution is effected in scale of nuclear installations.

Such expansion of nuclear-energy installations, including high-temperature gas-cooled reactors for industrial process-heat, makes possible and requires improvements in materials. Lasers and kindred instruments make possible the new kinds of machine-tools-for working new ceramics, for example-which improved qualities of materials require. This implies an acceleration in use of robotics, which, in tum, can make good use of qualitative advances in computer technologies.

Or, medical science. The per-capita cost of delivering modem health services is high, and a large component of the market-basket of households and other institutions. Although there is much misguided chatter, alleging that society can not afford high-technology, capital-intensive medical care, the simple truth is that new technologies of this sort decrease the unit -costs of medical procedures per patient, relative to more labor-intensive procedures. There is no prospect today, that such technologies can replace the indispensable function of the physician’s clinical judgment, but these technologies enable us to free the physician from more and more of those forms of labor which are not the exercise of that clinical judgment. Considering the scale of medical costs, the profitability of new technologies to society in this area is a large potential incentive for production of relevant by-products of the intermediate phase of a Moon-Mars mission-assignment.

Food is a large part of the market-basket of the world economy, and the costs of malnutrition, in terms of lost productive potential, are presently off the scale and rising. What we have done with chicken-hotels can be done with premium-value vegetables, with aid of the right biochemistry and sufficient energy-supplies. Here is another area of large opportunity for private investment in some of the by-products of a Moon-Mars mission-assignment.

We urgently require both safer motor vehicles, and a shift to a hydrogen-fuel-based mode of vehicular power. Today, hydrogen can be handled as safely as gasoline in various chemical and compressed forms, and the by-product of hydrogen combustion is water-not exactly a pollutant. We can conserve the fossil fuels for use as a petrochemical stock for industry. The combination of new materials, of nonpolluting nuclear energy, and the non-polluting hydrogen mode for vehicular power, is the means for rendering urban centers once again desirable centers of both residence and industrial production, and an indispensable response to the continued growth of the world’s population.

These examples merely illustrate the point: a private initiative in support of the intermediate phase of a Moon-Mars mission-assignment will in and of itself inevitably produce an array of by-products readily suited to immediate largescale production within the economy.

Not only is private initiative implicitly an economical proposition; it is also more or less indispensable. A summary of certain highlights of the history of industrial capitalism in Western Europe and the United States is most relevant.

Beginning with the collaboration between Cosimo de Medici and Georgius Gemistus (Plethon), the Golden Renaissance was both a moral and cultural revolution, and a directed shift of European culture toward a “science driver” mode of development of economy. In order to free mankind from feudal socialism, the socialism of feudal agriculture and urban guilds, enlightened monarchs, including-France’s Louis XI and the English Tudors, used the royal power to issue patents, to grant limited monopolies (patents) to consortia of inventors and their partners; out of this came the modem industrial-capitalist firm. Out of this, the independent entrepreneurial farmer replaced the feudal peasant, the technologically progressive manufacturer replaced the progress-resistant guilds, and the free citizen as employed operative replaced the immiserated “proletariat” of the feudal urban centers.

Those creative powers of mind, by means of which individuals discover or assimilate and apply scientific principles, are, by their nature, uniquely the powers of individuals. Progress is sustained, therefore, by those who run ahead of, and often contrary to existing habits and prevailing opinion, by those who always appear initially as the few.

Science itself is characterized by great rigor. No scientist is a scientist if he pits his “free opinion” against the laws of the universe. Yet, as long as the scientist enslaves his judgment to such rigor, it is the nature of all scientific progress, that each important discovery opposes and overthrows previously prevailing opinion among scientists. It is the right of the scientist to be free, as long as he is also rigorous, which is indispensable to scientific progress.

True, there are certain aspects of economy which must never be left to random choices of private investors. Whenever the state fails to exert a monopoly of responsibility for issuance and regulation of its currency, disaster ensues. Basic economic infrastructure, such as large-scale water-management, general transportation, production and distribution of energy, general communications, and essential urban-industrial common services, must be either provided by the government, or provided by governmentally-regulated utilities. Otherwise, disaster ensues. On this point, President George Washington and other leading architects of the 1787 Federal Constitution were emphatically persuaded, and rightly so.

However, governmental bureaucracy is usually an abomination on several counts. As a collectivity, a bureaucracy reduces the net behavior of its members to a lowest common denominator, stifling creativity. Only military institutions tend to be an exception to this, and those effectively so only under capable leaderships, and under the passion of determination not to lose whatever wars might be foreseen as possible. In agriculture and in industry, most emphatically, governmental bureaucracies, both the politicians and the permanent bureaucracies, are traditionally a disaster in every area but the management of arsenals. Hence, outside of currency, of banking, of military affairs, of regulation of foreign and interstate commerce, and of provision and maintenance of basic economic infrastructure, a prudent nation prefers private entrepreneurship: wherever government’s role in the economy is not indispensable, wise nations prefer that government and politicians not be present. This is not always possible, notably in developing economies, where the state sector performs an irreplaceable role in the industrial sector; but it is most desirable wherever feasible. [box: Space Exploration: The Need for a Grand Vision]

This has been shown in the recent years’ experience with entrepreneurship which has taken up the challenge, while the politicians and governmental bureaucracies either seek to sabotage the efforts or vacillate. The enlightened private sector recognizes readily, that a technological revolution is urgently needed, if economies are to recover from the “post-industrial” decay destroying our civilization today. Governments, which tend to prefer the rhetoric of assumedly popular ideologies to reality, are more concerned with the sound of the words in a policy than the practical consequences of either implementing or refusing to implement such a policy.

It is the minority of dedicated professionals and industrialists, who are either already taking the lead in the general implementation of the SDI’s technologies, or are seriously considering such steps. If those private forces are brought into international cooperation, the aggregations of those persons and of relatively small comers of industrial capacity allotted to development, add up to the order of several billions of dollars in effective impact. For the initial and intermediate phases of a “crash program,” cooperation on such a scale promises very impressive results.

We must also consider the important fact that various nations not part of the Atlantic Alliance do not have the political option of participating in the SDI as nations, although some among these do desire to have use of such technologies for their sovereign purposes. It were an error, to delimit the development of SDI technologies to the U.S.’s own SDI program; this excludes the valuable contribution from nations not part of the Atlantic Alliance.

No matter, the adoption of a Moon-Mars mission-assignment subsumes implicitly every technology required by the SDI, and more. It provides each participating nation the “spill-over” benefits otherwise peculiar to SDI development. It bypasses the political obstacles to participation in SDI development. It puts the research and development in the task-oriented form which coincides with the fundamental interests of each and every nation.

Economic Feasibility

It is a commonplace error, to attempt to judge the merits of investment in a new technology in terms of one specific application, without considering beneficial chain-reaction effects of the spread of that type of technology in the economy more generally.

It is, similarly, a commonplace error, to attempt to estimate the profitability of such an investment solely in terms of priced-out output of production, without due regard to the more profound impact of technologically progressive investments, the increase of the quality of the productive process itself.

It is a fair rule of thumb, that to sustain high rates of profitability in modem economies, the portion of the labor force employed in support of scientific research and development ought to be not less than 5% of the labor-force. This is helped by taxation-policies which foster financial incentives for high rates of investment in research and development in private firms.

Assuming that there is sufficient increase of energy-intensity, in the case that two comparable economies each employ 5% of their respective labor-forces in support of scientific research and development, the higher profitability will occur in the economy in which the research and development is relatively more science-intensive, in which relatively greater emphasis is placed on breakthroughs in the frontiers of science.

Thus, to estimate the impact of a Moon-Mars mission-assignment on the growth-rates in economies of participating nations, we must consider, in first-approximation, the marginal increase in research and development introduced, and also, in second approximation, the increase of science-intensity of that economy’s research and development as a whole.

The increase of productive powers of labor is effected through the following causal sequence:

1. Fundamental scientific research generates the principles which ultimately cause increases in the productive powers of labor;

2. Incorporation of improved technologies, produced by fundamental research, into capital goods, especially in the machine-tool sector, transmits the technological improvement to production more generally;

3. The improvement in productivity is transmitted to the average operative’s work-place in proportion to both the relative capital-intensity of production, and the development of the mental potential of the operative to assimilate that new technology.

The introduction of the new technologies generated by fundamental scientific research into production, is radiated through the economy as a whole in a form fairly described as “technology waves.” These “technology waves” may be better understood through aid of the following series of observations.

It is implicitly feasible, to restate the per-capita market-baskets of inputs and outputs of producers’ and households’ goods of an economy in terms of the putative energy-cost of those market-baskets. The total amount of energy so attributed to either inputs or outputs, whichever is greater, defines the usable energy-throughput of the economic process as a whole.

This energy-throughput we divide, in a conventional way, into two general components: “energy of the system” and “free energy.” The “energy of the system” is an estimate of the amount of energy-throughput, expressed in those market-basket forms, required to maintain the per-capita output of the economy at the current level. Any residue remaining after deducting this estimated “energy of the system,” is the “free energy” component. Designate “energy of the system” by S, and “free energy” by E. We examine the economic process, in first approximation, in terms of functions of the ratio of (S + E)/S: total energy-throughput in ratio to “energy of the system.”

In the rise of productive powers of labor in actual economies, the per-capita magnitude of S increases, but (S + E)/ S also rises. In other words, the quantity of energy-throughput per-capita increases geometrically, but the per-capita social cost of the enlarged amount of total energy-throughput either drops or does not rise.

Not only is an increase of the per-capita energy-throughput a precondition for increase of the productive powers of labor. There is also a generally required trend to increase the modal energy-flux density of both energy-supplies produced and at the point of production. In modem industries, such as the case of the iron and steel industry ably illustrates the point, the rise of productivity correlates with jumps in the modal energy-flux density of the productive process.

It is well known that the first-approximation measure of increase of productivity of an industrial society, is a reduction in the percentile of the labor-force required to produce needed agricultural output of food and fiber. It is also the case, that the ratio of labor-force employed in producers goods’ output to household-goods output must increase. Also, the ratio of persons employed in physical (including biological) research and development, to combined agricultural and industrial operatives, must increase.

These, foregoing, are the principal, rough constraints defining the preconditions for increase of the productive powers of labor. The “reinvestment” of the “free energy” component of ‘total energy-throughput, must be allotted to the effect, that the relative increases in ratios of employment and energy-composition, indicated by these constraints, result.

The increase in energy-intensity and capital-intensity, required by these constraints, is expressed topologically as an increase in density of singularities. In layman’s language, this signifies a change in the structure of the economic process, a change in structure correlating with increase of energy- and capital-intensity. The average amount of S per-capita increases in this way. However, if this occurs in a technologically progressive mode, the quantity S + E increases more rapidly than S: the average rate of profit on investment increases.[fn_3]

As a result of such a pattern of investment, measured in energy- and in capital-intensity, an average unit of economic action, per-capita, in the economy costs more energy, but the per-capita cost of producing this increased energy, is less than the cost of producing the smaller market-baskets of the preceding investment-cycle.

This transformation occurs in the manner outlined for the progress through intermediate to full-scale phases of a “crash program,” above. Scientific progress affects most directly the use and improvement of machine-tools and other capital-goods. This connection occurs typically in the production of improved species of materials and instruments. The application of these new prototypes, including new kinds of materials and components, to production in general, “transfers” technology from capital-goods production to the productive process more generally. This transfer prompts the general increase of the productive powers of labor.

In addition, the addition of new species of materials and components, increases the complexity of the social division of labor in the economy as a whole. The development of the automobile reduced the demand for buggy-whips, but the new branches of production required by the automobile’s development were more numerous than those branches made obsolete.

The spill-over of new technologies into the economy as a whole, through the intermediate phase of the process, occurs in several ways. New materials and instruments proliferate as additions to the repertoire of the producers’ goods market-baskets. New materials and instruments, mean new specializations in production of materials and components for producers’ goods. Intrinsically less productive elements of the division of labor are replaced by more productive elements. These effects radiate in “technology waves.”

The hydrodynamic imagery is the proper choice. The characteristics of the production and investment cycles, relative to capital-intensity, are metrical characteristics of the investment-process. It is proper to speak of the “tuning” and the “resonances” of the economic process as a whole. [fn_4] The steepness of the wave-front is chiefly a function of two sub-functions: 1) Combined increases of energy-intensity and capital-intensity; and 2) Science-intensity. The possibility of realizing the implicit advantages of a certain level of science-intensity, is bounded by the levels and rates of increase of combined energy-intensity and capital-intensity. Science-intensity, in turn, is a combined function of the relative portion of the labor-force employed in support of research and development, and the degree of emphasis upon fundamental scientific progress, as distinct from concentration on relatively well-established scientific principles. In sum, the greater the percentile of the labor-force usefully employed in research and development, and the greater the emphasis upon fundamental advances, the steeper the wave-front radiated from research and development into the investment-process.

The economic measure of relative “fundamentalness” of research and development, is analogous to measurement of increase of firepower and mobility in those instruments we call weapons. Firepower and mobility, in the military sphere, is the analog of increase of productivity in the productive process. It is more than merely an analog. In each case for comparisons, the two are but different expressions of the same level of technology. “Firepower and mobility,” so situated, is measured in terms of:

1. Per-capita usable energy-throughput;

2. Energy-flux density at the point of application;

3. Relative coherence of energy-application modes, according to the geometrical definition of a physical Principle of Least Action.

The rate of increase of these, in a form implicitly increasing the ratio (S + E)/S, for increasing per-capita values of S, is a reflection of relative “negentropy.”[fn_5]

Thus, on condition that a society’s investment policy is energy-intensive and capital-intensive, the steeper the “technology-wave,” and the more broadly this “wave” is directly integrated with research and development, the higher the rate of increase of productive powers of labor in that society.

Therefore, to increase the relative percentile of employment in research and development, to increase emphasis on fundamental research, and to deploy this in a manner approaching a “science-driver” mode of “crash program,” is to ensure the highest rate of increase of the productive powers of labor, and therefore the highest rate of profitability of technological progressive investments in physical output for market-baskets in that economy.

This is the proper approach for projected estimated return on investment in improved technologies. Plainly, therefore, a Moon-Mars-colonization mission-assignment is implicitly the most profitable form of technology-policy for any society today.

Some Concrete Considerations

The most general problem of interplanetary colonization arises from the limited amount of supplies which can be ferried from one planet to another even with the best foreseeable kinds of interplanetary powered trajectories. This difficulty is somewhat reduced for Mars-colonization, by converting the Moon into the principal manufacturing logistical base for fashioning essential products to be delivered to a Mars parking-orbit. On principle, the difficulty remains the principal obstacle to interplanetary colonization.

The general form of required solution is the development of means for economically converting whatever materials and conditions exist on colonized planets into the primary materials and food-stuffs required by the colonists. On the first count, primary materials, the basic solution includes relatively very large energy-supplies per-capita, relative to present Earth modes of production, energy-flux densities at least four times those in use at present, and liberal reliance on the super-high energy-flux densities realized by aid of the self-focusing properties of coherent electromagnetic impulses. On the second count, the subsumption of currently developing biotechnology with optical biophysics, defines the general form of solution.

As early as 1948-1953, as we have referenced this, Wernher von Braun demonstrated the medium-term feasibility, even then, of launching a space-assembled flotilla of interplanetary craft, for a round-trip from Earth-orbit to a kind of “Antarctica station” set up by this expedition on the surface of Mars. Von Braun’s preface to the 1962 edition of that proposal, is most usefully thought-provoking for those undertaking a fresh approach to the project today.

Krafft Ehricke has elaborated to a large degree the necessary plans for developing a manufacturing colony on the Moon, a colony based on fission technologies. It would be feasible to launch that Moon colonization as soon as the means can be mustered, without waiting for new developments in thermonuclear-fusion technologies. However, although von Braun’s approach, using fission technologies, would suffice for establishing on Mars an analog of the “Antarctica station” under Rear Admiral Richard Byrd, fission technologies are not an adequate basis for establishing a permanent sort of more or less self-sustaining colonization.

As we have indicated, the general principle of interplanetary colonization must be the availability of technologies adequate to transform any materials and conditions abounding for the landing parties into primary materials of construction. This can be solved by sufficiently high energy-flux densities of thermonuclear plasmas, and by focusing such energy into suitable forms of high-energy coherent beams. The energy-regimes needed, are those which enable us, so to speak, to boil and distill any sort of raw material, to transmute some of the distillate, and to create new states of organization of matter. In broad principle, the nature of such requirements is already known, and the feasibility of meeting such requirements in the early future, known with sufficient precision to warrant a “crash program” in related matters.

Excepting biophysics-matters as such, every problem of technology on the present frontiers of scientific progress on Earth, is implicitly solved by solutions to this cited materials problem of Mars-colonization.

Now, let us shift our point of attention to biophysics.

It was already implicit in the cited discoveries of Luca Pacioli and Leonardo da Vinci, as in the later work of Louis Pasteur, that the mastery of living processes requires us to shift the emphasis from particle-chemistry to hydrodynamics. Of greatest interest to us today, is the fact that organic molecules are tuned to receive and to emit characteristic frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum, to the effect that we must stress the electro-hydrodynamic properties of atomic and subatomic structures, rather than assuming an axiomatically statistical or dynamic interaction among discrete particles. Of special interest are those negentropic forms of tuned excitation-emission, in which the energy-flux density of the electro-hydrodynamic action is increased by several orders of magnitude. This is optical biophysics.

Dear old chlorophyll dimers, are among the obvious targets of optical-biophysics research, especially as we prepare to colonize the Moon and Mars. This is less exotic than negentropic electro-hydrodynamics of DNA and RNA, but not less essential. On Mars, we shall be obliged, at least to a very large degree, to rely upon hydroponics, and to supply the plants the energy they require, in appropriate doses of selective radiation created by artificial sources, from thermonuclear fusion. They shall also require the proper sort of paramagnetic regimes amid their dosages of nutrient. We need to master the designing and redesigning of chlorophyll dimers, to tune their little antenna-tails appropriately, and so forth.

We must also produce the right proteins within balanced nutrition, in light of the shortage of animal-protein supplies on the Moon and Mars. This touches some currently very important challenges of medical science here on Earth.

Relatively less critical, but very important nonetheless, for interplanetary flight, constant acceleration in order of 1 G of alternating acceleration and deceleration is needed for flights much longer than those between Earth and Moon geostationary orbits. For this, thermonuclear fusion is needed.

With foreseeable improvements in ceramics, the largest single component of a nuclear or fusion reactor could be reduced in weight to significantly less than 25 tons. Krafft Ehricke worked through some shrewd schemes for using fission on the Moon, but for Mars-colonization, we shall have to transport the components of reactors to the Mars surface, and assemble them there. For reasons given by von Braun, this expedition will involve a flotilla of manned interplanetary craft, kept in the same tunnel of trajectory at no more than space-boat distance from one another during the flight.

Probably, we shall construct most of the components of the Mars expedition’s flotilla on the Moon, assembling the components into interplanetary craft in parking orbits. This will make the Mars expedition far more economical, but certain fundamental problems persist even so.

Probably, it were prudent to use 10 MW to 50 MW fusion reactor modules of common standard design, both to power the interplanetary craft and for power plants on Mars itself. These modules would be of a type which, not coincidentally, would have a large scale of general usage on Earth, too.

On Mars, it would be most convenient to have tunable lasers and particle-beams: one type of tool for the most varied of required applications. “Distilling” raw material, isotope separation of the distilled plasmas, and assembling such isotopes into desired states of matter in the form of primary materials, illustrate the point. The certainty that we shall have to manufacture water and oxygen, and so on, on colonized planets, also illustrates the point.

Imagine the impact of such technologies to economies on Earth.

There is another aspect to interplanetary colonization. Conventional physics today assumes that what we call “force” is a self-evidently primary existence in our universe. The work of Johannes Kepler, and of Karl Gauss and his collaborators, implicitly argues that this is false, that the primary lawful composition of our universe is metrically force-free action, and that “force” is introduced as the correlative of work against a force-free pathway of action. We shall not discuss the possible solutions to this antinomy here, but merely stress that the advantages of practicing astrophysics beyond Earth, and outside the solar ecliptic, too, is among the indispensable measures required to settle fully the highly practical, as well as theoretical importance of this antinomy. We must observe the astronomical domain in the fullest range of the electromagnetic spectrum, and correlate what we learn on the scale of astrophysics with corresponding metrical invariances at the opposite, sub-atomic microphysical extreme. From this will come many practical benefits, as well as the new directions of fundamental physical research beyond the scientific frontiers essential to Mars-colonization.

The Extraterrestrial Imperative

Krafft Ehricke laid particular stress on the moral importance of space-colonization, upon what he termed “The Extraterrestrial Imperative.” The point is, to shift man’s sense of identity, above hedonistic, Hobbesian squabbling over the mud of our home-planet, and to prompt mankind to locate its destiny in work in the universe more generally. At first glance, some may not think this aspect of the matter of much practical bearing upon a private initiative; a small amount of further reflection on the point ought to show that this is a very practical, as well as a moral consideration.

It is a profoundly mistaken, but unfortunately popular view today, to estimate that scientific work is essentially “logical,” and therefore dispassionate. In other words, scientific work is judged to be “academic,” in the worst sense of that term.

Any intelligent and reflective person, must recall as the most joyful moments of his or her life as a pupil in primary and secondary schools, as those moments of discovery, in which the act of discovery was associated with an emotion at once impassioned and sublime. We sometimes speak of such moments as “a light going on in the head.” It can best be described as a “beautiful experience.” When we, as happy children, relive some discovery of the past in the course of our studies, we experience a kind of joyful excitement akin to the most profound sense of love, the quality of love summed up by Dante Alighieri in the concluding, empyreal canto of his Commedia.

Examining the matter more closely, we should be able to recall, the joy of discovery was inseparable from the fact that acceptable solutions to the problem posed were delimited to solutions fully consistent with a definite degree of scientific rigor. There is nothing arbitrary, as nineteenth-century Romanticism is arbitrary, in the peculiar sort of joyful excitement associated with genuinely re-experiencing a discovery by one of our scientific forebears. There is a godliness in such experiences: the essential thing, is that we delimit creative solutions to problems to those definitions of problems and solutions which are constrained by a sense of the universal and rigorous lawfulness of Creation as a whole.

Friedrich Schiller’s profound attack upon Immanuel Kant’s miserably philistine and Romantic notions of irrationality in creative discovery and the aesthetical sense, is a most useful reference on this point.

Exploring those childhood moments of great delight a bit further, we should recall that the lingering quality of that excitement was delimited to our anticipation of the practical benefits of the discovery we had just experienced. In our experience of the power within us, as individuals, to effect creative discoveries which are both consistent with a most rigorous and universal lawfulness of Creation, and which contribute increased practical power implicitly to all mankind, we experience in ourselves our divine potentialities, that which sets man apart from the hedonistic, existentialist, beasts and existentialist beast-men alike. Creative discovery partakes of the immortal individual action, that produced by one individual, of implicit benefit to all present and future generations.

In adult life, the individual’s creative powers are an extension and maturation of such joyful experiences as young pupils. The adult scientist strives to re-experience those beautiful moments of childhood experience, within the scale of reference assigned to his practical duties as an adult member of society. To be able to retain such motives and creative powers, is to love oneself, is expressive of the highest degree of happiness an individual can attain in this mortal life. No matter how crabbed, peevish, or other the personality defects with which a scientist may be adorned in social practice in the classroom or in other practice of the profession or personal life, what makes him a fruitful scientist is a childlike quality within him, the sweet fruit among the worms of his personality defects.

The essence of science is such passion, such task-orientation. Herein lies the source of energy for sustained concentration-span in rigorous re-examination of prevailing assumptions. Herein lies not only the passion indispensable to creative-scientific fruitfulness; herein lies the capacity of the layman, as factory operative, or other, to assimilate scientific progress efficiently, creatively.

It is such so-impassioned “task-orientation,” situated within a fierce attachment to Socratic rigor, which is the wellspring of great upsurges of scientific creativity, and upsurges of the enlarged capacity of populations for “imparting and receiving profound and impassioned conceptions respecting man and nature.” To afford to scientific progress, the unifying form of task-orientation supplied by a proper choice of grand mission-assignment, is the optimal circumstance for high rates of productions in the advancement of applications of fundamental scientific progress.

Herein lies the singular importance of that Peenemunde task-force born out of the civilian Moon-mission-assignment of Professor Hermann Oberth. It is the irony of modem history, that the larger-scale implementation of “crash programs” is fostered only under circumstances of military expediency; so, Professor Oberth’s progressed beyond its initial private phase under the patronage of a German military which, in tum, fell prey to the mystically anti-rationalist, anti-scientific Nazi state. So, the continuation of that group’s mission-assignment in the United States’ aerospace program, was linked to a military expediency. The unpopular, and unhappy, features of the military destinies of Professor Oberth’s group, have tended to prejudice judgment against sorting out what was and is primary, from amid the unpopular predicates of circumstance.

The lesson of Professor Oberth’ s task-force is the role of the Moon mission-assignment in forcing into play a wide range of the best fruits of nineteenth-century German science, and to force that German science to deliver a comprehensive solution to the tasks of bringing mankind into space. The “Extraterrestrial Imperative,” excites the professional popular view of scientific progress as perhaps no other foreseeable choice of mission-assignment might do this. If we wish the highest rate of productivity in laboratories and in production, these benefits will be supplied as by-products of an impassioned commitment to master all of the tasks of the Moon-Mars mission-assignment.

[fn_1]. Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., “Krafft Ehricke’s Enduring Contribution to the Future Generations of Global and Interplanetary Civilization,” in Colonize Space! Open the Age of Reason: Proceedings of the Krafft Ehricke Memorial Conference of the Schiller Institute, Reston, Virginia, June 15-16, 1985. New Benjamin Franklin House, New York, 1985, pp. 27-54. [back to text for fn_1]

[fn_2]. Wernher von Braun, The Mars Project, Urbana, University of Illinois Press, 1962. [back to text for fn_2]

[fn_3]. This process has a precise mathematical form in the LaRouche-Riemann Method of economic analysis. [back to text for fn_3]

[fn_4]. In the LaRouche-Riemann Method, the metrical characteristic of an economic process is a rate of increase of a definite value of potential relative population-density. The appropriate extension of Leibniz’s Principle of Least Action to this function, is the Gaussian conic self-similar-spiral action, as the elaborated form of circular (isoperimetric) action. The first-approximation of technological progress in an energy-intensive, capital-intensive mode, is such a form of Least Action acting everywhere upon itself. This is reflected as an hyperboloid projected upon the surface of a Riemannian sphere.

This hyperbolic function reflects the resonance of the economic process respecting that “technology wave” under those conditions. The zooming of the hyperbolic curve into the vanishing-point of the sphere, correlates with a “jump” of the economic process as a whole to a higher state, with altered metrical characteristics, a new function in terms of (S + E)/S, at a higher level of per-capita energy of the system. Since, in this case, perimetric action (surface displacement) subtends a partial volume of the sphere as the measure of work accomplished, the jump to a higher state of the system corresponds to a larger concentric sphere. At the hyperbolic singularity, the action continues on the larger sphere. The Least Action form of successive such jumps determines an harmonic series. Actual transformations of economic processes are measured against this normative, Least Action, case. [back to text for fn_4]

[fn_5]. By “negentropy,’’ we do not mean the statistical definition according to Ludwig Boltzmann’s theory of statistical fluctuations. We signify the distinction between living and non-living processes, first elaborated by the collaborators Luca Pacioli and Leonardo da Vinci, as adopted by Johannes Kepler for his own synthetical-geometrical construction of the least-action pathways of planetary orbits. In the range of phenomena lying between the astrophysical and microphysical extremes, living processes are distinguished from non-living by the fact, that the morphologies of growth and function of healthy living processes describe a self-similar harmonic series which is congruent with the Golden Section. All processes, in this range, which exhibit that harmonic characteristic, are either living processes or a special class of products of action on nature by living processes.

The Golden Section, in turn, is the characteristic of projection of conic self-similar-spiral action in the Gaussian manifold onto the Euclidean manifold of brain-synthesized sensory images of physical processes. This Gaussian synthetic-geometric view of Pacioli’s and Leonardo da Vinci’s discovery, is the definition of “negentropy’’ employed. In economic processes, this correlates with the cumulative density of the kinds of singularities of technological progress which our ideal model associates with hyperbolic singularities and “jumps.’’ [back to text for fn_5]

Space Exploration: The Need for a Grand Vision

NASA

Artist’s depiction of a manned lunar base.

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

Forest Tierson, professor at the University of Colorado and member of the Space Foundation, Inc., contributed the following discussion of the requirements for a crash program for strategic defense and space exploration, at the Krafft A. Ehricke Memorial Conference, in Washington on June 16:

There are two things to make this program work. The first is to make the [Soviet] threat visible to the populations of the Western world. . . . The second aspect of getting this crash program to work is to provide some vision. Its not just a question of responding to Soviet provocation and some Soviet military construction programs. We have to point out two things. First, what are the very short-term economic advantages to this particular reindustrialization and movement into space, in the sense of Moon colonies, colonies on Mars, and that sort of thing? That kind of point could be made very easily, when you tie that to the development of power satellites for beaming power to earth, when you talk about metallurgical and crystal-growing experiments that can be done that can provide tremendous new impetus in the area of crystals and micro-electronics. There are crystals that can be taken to produce devices that have tremendous numbers of units per surface area.

One of the ways we can get industry interested is to demonstrate this to them. You get paid back very quickly.

But even more than that, there has to be almost a philosophical sort of Renaissance. It has to do with movement from place to place. I’ll speak just for a moment as a biological anthropologist, talking about human evolution in general. Life has existed probably on this planet for three and a half billion years. When that life first arose, the planet was nothing like it is today. It had an atmosphere which was full of ammonia, carbon dioxide, and methane, just wonderful stuff that we’d all love to step outside now and get a nice big smell of. Over a period of several billion years, those organisms made the Earth as it is today. They purified it. We were mentioning doing something like that with Mars earlier today. But these organisms did that to this planet. We share a history with those organisms; we have some of their genetic material in us today.

There was a period when life existed in the sea and moved out of the sea into a new environment, the land environment. And now we’re facing another step in our development. We’ve reached a point where this planet is not big enough for us and we’re facing another move out. We can leave this planet which has been our home for, if you want to talk in an evolutionary sense, perhaps three and a half billion years; if you want to talk in terms of us, ourselves, as a species, perhaps a couple of million years, or less. We can leave that now. It’s like leaving home. Leaving home requires growing up, it forces growing up and if we intend to survive, that’s certainly one of the things that we have to do as well. [back to text]

II. China-U.S.-Italy

Italy Enhances Positive

Seismic Shifts in Europe

by Claudio Celani

governo.it

At the State lunch at the Quirinale Palace in Rome, held in honor of the President of China, March 22, 2019. Left to right: Giuseppe Conte, Italian Prime Minister; Laura Mattarella, First Lady and daughter of Sergio Mattarella; Sergio Mattarella, President of Italy; Xi Jinping, President of the People’s Republic of China; and Ms. Peng Liyuan, Xi’s wife.

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

March 30—“This is just the beginning,” said Michele Geraci, Undersecretary of State in the Italian Ministry of Economic Development, and the architect of the strategic partnership forged by Italy and China on Nov. 23, with a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on the Belt and Road Initiative—the BRI.

Italy’s official participation in the Belt and Road is of major importance and marks a breakthrough in the advancement of the New Paradigm of economic development and international relationship inaugurated by the BRI. Italy is the first industrially advanced country, the first G7 member and the first founding member of the European Union (EU) to formally join the BRI. Furthermore, Italy is the second largest manufacturing economy in the EU, adding a major productive potential to the rapidly growing BRI.

Italy’s move had been preceded by attacks from the City of London, U.S. neocon circles and Italy’s own “partners” in the EU. The Italian government was accused of “selling out” national assets, and even endangering NATO security by opening the gates of Europe to China’s “expansionist policy” and security-relevant technology.

The text of the Memorandum shows that all those allegations were false (see EIR March 29, 2019, pp. 14-15). And the Italians went on the offensive.

Marco Zanni, European Member of Parliament and newly appointed Foreign Policy speaker of the Lega, in an interview with Affaritaliani.it on March 15, explained that not only is Italy not backing one millimeter away from its traditional alliances, but that Rome wants to bring the United States and China closer together on the New Silk Road. Zanni is well known for his fight for Glass-Steagall and his collaboration with the LaRouche movement.

governo.it

Wang Yi, China’s Foreign Minister ,and Luigi Di Maio shake hands after signing trade agreements at Villa Madama in Rome on March 23, 2019. Seated are Xi Jinping (l.) and Giuseppe Conte (r.).

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

The Italy-China MOU is Not a Threat

The agreement with China does not threaten Italy’s historical alliances, Zanni said.

Our historical ally is Washington. The Agreement with China could rather make us the trait d’union [literally, the hyphen] between the USA, Europe, and the Asian world. It is a difficult path, but we are convinced we can accomplish it.

[If conditions set forth by Rome are fulfilled] Italy has an opportunity economically but also geopolitically. We are witnessing a big leadership crisis in Europe, which opens political and geopolitical room in the relationship with the USA. After Brexit and Donald Trump, Italy—with its green-yellow government experiment—can insert itself in this area of change and, thanks to its position, can become the privileged interlocutor of Washington in Europe, at the same time establishing itself as a link to the Asian economies.

The lack of infrastructural investment in Europe may even be a stimulus for the USA to criticize even more strongly EU socio-economic policies. If many states today go outside of Europe to find money for infrastructure, it is because Europe has not favored indigenous investment, because of self-destructive policies. The level of European infrastructure is ridiculous. The BRI discussion can be an additional stimulus for the USA and Europe to change behavior on infrastructure investment policies.

On those same premises, the Italian Deputy Prime Minister, Luigi Di Maio, flew to Washington for discussions on March 28 with U.S. National Security chief John Bolton. In a tweet, Bolton wrote: “Met Italy’s Deputy Prime Minister Di Maio this afternoon to discuss U.S.-Italian cooperation on the crisis in Venezuela, managing our relationship with China, and our strong security partnership in NATO.”

The last phrase is the relevant one: “. . . our strong security partnership in NATO.” This shows that the U.S. government does not see that partnership endangered by the China deal.

Meanwhile, Italian Finance Minister Giovanni Tria and his colleague Geraci travelled to Boao, Hainan Province, China, to participate in the annual Boao Forum for Asia, March 29-30.

governo.it

He Lifeng, Director of China’s National Development and Reform Commission, and Luigi Di Maio, Italy’s Minister of Labor and Industry, shaking hands after signing trade agreements at Villa Madama in Rome on March 23, 2019.

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

China is Not a ‘Systemic Rival’

As Geraci was discussing investment policy with the President of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, Tria stated in an interview with CGTN that Italy disagrees with the idea of treating China as a “systemic rival”:

I want to say that I don’t share this wording used by this document. I cannot define China as a systemic rival; I would prefer to say that China is a competitor, a big competitor because it is a big economy of course, and I like competition, free competition. But I don’t want to define any country as a systemic rival.

That characterization of a China as a systemic rival has been especially promoted by French President Emmanuel Macron, and is in a new document, “EU-China—A Strategic Outlook,” drafted by the European Commission.

Tria also addressed the issue of the MOU on the BRI signed last week by China and Italy, saying that this was “the major outcome” of Xi Jinping’s visit to Italy:

This means that we want to improve the economic and commercial relationships, and, above all, we want to cooperate in these huge investment programs. This can improve not only our economies but also the knowledge between our peoples and our cultures, and can be useful to build more comprehension between the two countries. This is very important. [The BRI] is not just about import-export, about trade. Of course, improved trade will be an indirect result of the BRI. The Initiative is about building connectivity among all countries: between China and Europe, including Central Asia and other countries.

The Schiller Institute greets Marco Zanni and Michele Geraci in Washington, D.C. on November 29, 2018. Left to right: Italian Undersecretary of Commerce for Economic Development Michele Geraci; Paul Gallagher of the Schiller Institute; Marco Zanni, Italian Independent Member of the European Parliament; and Alicia Cerretani of the Schiller Institute.

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

Italy Asserts Leadership in Europe

Italy’s decision to take a leadership position in the EU has forced its partners, France and Germany, to react. While both French President Macron and Chancellor Angela Merkel still dictate policy in the EU, they cannot block sovereign decisions taken by member states to break free from the insane EU consensus. Furthermore, opposition to the opportunities offered by the Belt and Road is increasing the already immense unpopularity suffered by Macron and Merkel, among the public in general and the pro-BRI industrial sector in particular.

Thus, Macron rushed to roll out the red carpet for President Xi Jinping’s visit to Paris, which followed Xi’s visit to Italy, March 22-24. In a show of would-be Bonapartist glamor, Macron arranged the presence of German Chancellor Angela Merkel and EU Commission head Jean-Claude Juncker at the summit with Xi. Multibillion-euro deals were signed between France and China.

The three dinosaur politicians of Europe are, however, sticking to their geopolitical game of playing Europe as a bloc against China, the “systemic rival.” This foolishness did not go unnoticed by Chinese media, who described the quite different atmospheres in Xi’s visits to Rome and Paris.

Italy has set a benchmark and others will follow. Of all EU members, Juncker’s own Luxembourg was the first to follow Italy. Undersecretary Geraci posted an ironical comment on his Facebook page:

As we forecast, another EU country, Luxembourg, has just signed an MOU with China. Should we expect from Commissioner Juncker and the EU the same criticisms [against Luxembourg] they advanced against us? Or? What do you say?

China to Create the

World’s Largest City Cluster

by William Jones

March 29—The release, in China, of a detailed plan for the development and integration of an area comprising the nine cities of the southern coastal Guangdong region, plus Hong Kong and Macao, marks the beginning of a project that will create the biggest industrial and production center the world has ever seen. The plan was released by the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party and the State Council of China on February 18. The Greater Bay Area (GBA), as this region is called, located on a strategic trade hub near the South China Sea, with easy access to the traditional trade routes of East and South Asia, and with the high-speed rail connections to the Eurasian Silk Road Economic Belt, will serve as a nodal point for the Belt and the Road (BRI).

There are, of course, a number of other regions in the world deserving of the designation “greater bay area,” including Tokyo, with around 38 million people; New York, with around 20 million; and San Francisco with some 7 billion. But with its nearly 70 million people, the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macau GBA has the potential of far outstripping these other regions.

WEF/Michael Buholzer

Premier Li Keqiang

CC/jo.sau

Guangzhou skyline in 2013.

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

The Greater Bay Area Cities

Some of key infrastructure required to knit the region together is already in place, namely, the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge and a high-speed railway connecting Hong Kong, Guangzhou and Shenzhen. The Guangdong region consists of nine cities, all of which had been fishing villages before the “reform and opening up.” These include Guangzhou (formerly Canton), Shenzhen, Zhuhai, Foshan, Huizhou, Dongguan, Zhongshan, Jiangmen, and Zhaoqing. The idea of making this into a “Greater Bay Area” was first announced by Chinese Premier Li Keqiang in the 2017 Government Work Report, given at the National People’s Congress.

Guangzhou, formerly known in the West as Canton, has long been a major port on the southern Pearl River Delta, some 75 miles northwest of Hong Kong. It was the scene of the first major confrontation between China and the British which led to the First Opium War in the 1840s. It was also from this region that many of the Chinese laborers came to the United States who were critical in constructing the Transcontinental Railroad (as well as railroads in some Latin American countries). This region was also the birthplace of Dr. Sun Yatsen, the father of modern China, and the main hub of his revolt at the beginning of the 20th Century.

Hong Kong and Vicinity

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

Well Suited for a

High-Tech Hub

The region is already well suited to become a high-tech hub of major proportions. Guangzhou has long been an industrial city. It was also here that the first experiment in “reform and opening up” was set up in 1987 by Deng Xiaoping under the leadership of Xi Zhongxun, the father of President Xi Jinping. Guangzhou will have its functions as an industrial hub and commercial center strengthened by the GBA project. Guangzhou was also a central hub in the ancient Maritime Silk Road and is now serving the same function on the 21st Maritime Silk Road. The high-speed rail connecting it with Wuhan on the Yangtze River and parts further north, puts it into close connection with anther leg of the BRI, the Eurasian Silk Road Belt.

Xi Zhongxun addressing a mobilization meeting in Xi’an in June 1949.

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

The Shenzhen Special Economic Zone (SEZ), the first to be set up in China in 1978, has already become a major hub of advanced technology, where much of the information technology industry is located. Known as China’s “Silicon Valley,” it is home to some of China’s leading tech firms, including internet giant Tencent, drone maker DJI and telecom behemoth Huawei. In 1996 the SEZ was classified as a free trade zone. The city of Zhuhai, famous for its annual air show, is another SEZ bordering Macau, and has also developed into a major high-tech center, producing high-end manufacturing, including in aviation and aerospace.

Bringing together this group of cities in Guangdong province with the Special Administrative Regions (SARs) of Macau and Hong Kong will boost the economic vitality of the entire region. While Hong Kong and Macau have a certain degree of political autonomy and separate legal systems and customs services under the “one country, two systems” umbrella, they are at the same time more closely entwined with the international commercial networks.

While their special political status in China has also been something of a barrier in their fully profiting from the rapid development on the mainland, a closer economic integration will open up to the people of the SARs greater possibilities and benefits, and allow the capabilities of the SARs to more fully benefit the entire nation. The former Portuguese colony of Macau remains a major hub for investment in, and exchanges with China for Portugal and the Lusophone (Portuguese-speaking) countries in Africa and Latin America, and Portugal’s whole-hearted support for the Belt and Road Initiative will ensure that Macau serves as a major gateway for European involvement in the BRI.

The financial hub of Hong Kong is envisioned to become a major international financial center together with the Shenzhen stock market, serving as a source of private financing for BRI projects and for investment in innovative technologies. The government also intends to accelerate the introduction of international advanced technology, management experience and high-quality talents, and will support multinational companies in setting up global R&D centers, laboratories and open-innovation platforms in the GBA. The government also intends to expand international cooperation between the deep water ports in Guangzhou and Zhuhai, and the Hong Kong and Macao ports, build port industrial parks with relevant countries and regions, and build regional port alliances. Major systems characterizing “smart cities,” including energy, electricity, fiber networks and telecommunications, will be implemented in this city-cluster region.

Special Administrative Zones

Given the specific nature of the two SARs, there will of course be a limit to the administrative integration of the region, but the renewed emphasis, coming out of the 13th National People’s Congress (NPC), on continuing to open up to foreign investment and “energizing” small and medium-sized private enterprises, will help overcome any reticence on the part of the two SARs to take part in this major economic development project.

CC/BY-SA 4.0

The West section of the Hong Kong-Zuhai-Macau Bridge in 2018.

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

While the area is already characterized by high-tech industries, the present push for transforming China into an “innovation economy” will no doubt take off with a successful integration of this vibrant region. Synergizing the energies of the individual entities will hasten the pace of innovation. Facing the South China Sea, the GBA has already begun to reassert its historical role as a hub of the Maritime Silk Road and will help energize the increasing BRI trade with the nations of South East Asia and South Asia.

The Outline Development Plan also supports the establishment of a platform for investment and financing to serve the Belt and Road Initiative and to assist mainland enterprises in establishing capital operations and corporate treasury centers in Hong Kong. It supports consolidating and strengthening Hong Kong’s status as the global off-shore business hub for renminbi (RMB) trade, which will become more significant given the enlarged role of the RMB in Belt and Road transactions. The region will become a major transportation and logistics hub for the maritime trade with an expansion of the deep-water ports of Guangzhou and Shenzhen and the development of an international cultural exchange center.

A Living Lesson

There are many universities in the region, and with the increased flow of talent through the regional institutions and the synergy among the educational structures in the different entities, it will become a crucible of innovation, with local industries in the different cities able to tap the resources of the region as a whole. Hong Kong has the best education resources in the GBA, followed by Guangzhou. Li Qingquan, the president of Shenzhen University and an NPC deputy, has proposed creating a joint university under the auspices of “one country, two systems” in order to consolidate their respective strengths.

CC/BY-SA 2.5

Kwai Tsing container port in Hong Kong.

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

Many Hong Kong entrepreneurs are already utilizing Shenzhen for their start-ups. And last year national-level funding was made available to scientists in Hong Kong and Macao, the underlying aim being to transform the GBA into a major technology and innovation corridor and international trade hub. The plan envisions a framework for an international first-class bay area by 2022, and by 2035 it is intended that the region will have become a functioning economic system supported by innovative industry.

The implications of this project for Southeast Asia and beyond are profound. The Greater Bay Area will radiate economic benefits to the entire South Pacific region, affecting countries like Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, as well as the Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia and Indonesia. More broadly, the success of the Greater Bay Area project can well serve as a development model for other regions, whereby selecting a single port or industrial area as a focal point and building the necessary transportation and logistical connectivity with the surrounding region, you can then generate development in the region as a whole. And these are lessons that can well provide a solution to the outstanding problems of underdevelopment and poverty that still plague large areas of Asia, Africa and Latin America.

III. Exonerate LaRouche!

MUELLER MAGIC IMPLODES

President Trump Wants

To Put Women on Mars!

by Barbara Boyd

This is an edited transcript of Barbara Boyd’s comments on the March 28 LaRouche PAC Fireside Chat.

All right, gather around folks, I’m going to tell you a story tonight. With the collapse of Saint Robert Mueller’s inquisition against the Donald Trump, we really are at a very profound turning point in the battle for the United States. President Trump, on March 17, re-tweeted a tweet about the British origins of the coup against him. And then, two days ago, he made an announcement that we are returning to the Moon in five years, preparatory to exploring Mars. So, I think we can say without any doubt that we are being listened to at the highest levels of the U.S. government. Everything is possible, everything is up for grabs, provided we figure out how to seize, how to capitalize this particular moment.

Don’t worry so much about what is in the Mueller report. We largely already know that. All my analysis about what’s in it is posted on our website, www.larouchepac.com. I’m sure you’ve been there. All Mueller’s full report does—despite the crazy games being played by the Democrats screaming that they need the whole 400 pages—is report on his ridiculous indictments that already exist, and the reasons for them. I’m not going to dwell too much on that tonight because we’ve already covered it.

UPI/Kevin Dietsch

Robert Mueller, as FBI Director in 2013.

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

To summarize the real point here, the thug Robert Mueller, who, in the eyes of the media, the Democrats, and the intelligence community criminals on both sides of the Atlantic who were running the coup against the American President—in their eyes, he was Saint Robert Mueller,—didn’t possess the magic he was alleged to possess. He was not, like Rumpelstiltskin, capable of spinning straw into gold.

There was never anything there. His whole inquisition, his part of the coup, was put in place to continue a coup, already in motion; and each one of his indictments was simply timed to gin up a new round of the news cycle or to directly interfere with U.S.-Russia relations, such as what happened when he indicted the Russian military guys for the fake Democratic National Committee hack right on the eve of the Helsinki summit between Trump and Putin.

The report’s a cover-up, just like Mueller has always provided, for crimes already committed in the course of the insurrection against the President by the British, John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Barack Obama, and their British controllers. When a new Attorney General was appointed—William Barr—who worked with Mueller in the Bush Justice Department and who was appointed undoubtedly because he knows all about Robert Mueller and has the goods on him, Mueller’s big investigation suddenly ran out of steam and deflated. That’s the story.

Oligarchical Corruption

I want to start out tonight by framing the present moment in two statements: one from Friedrich Schiller and the other from Lyndon LaRouche. These statements, I believe, portray the deeper roots of both the prosecution of LaRouche and the insurrection against the Trump candidacy and the Trump Presidency.

Friedrich Schiller

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

In his famous 1789 essay, “What Is and To What End Do We Study Universal History?” Schiller distinguishes between those he calls “bread scholars,” those in the idea industry for the purposes of money and prestige, contrasting them with those intellects who willingly give free rein to the creative powers of the human mind for the simple, pure joy of doing so. Of the bread scholars, Schiller wrote:

Who rants more against reformers than the gaggle of bread-fed scholars? Who more holds up the progress of useful revolutions in the kingdom of knowledge than these very men? Every light radiated by a happy genius, in whichever science it be, makes their poverty apparent; their foils are bitterness, insidiousness, and desperation, for, in the school system they defend, they do battle at the same time for their entire existence. On that score, there is no more irreconcilable enemy, no more jealous official, no one more eager to denounce heresy than the bread-fed scholar. . . . Thus, one hears no one complain more about ingratitude than the bread-fed scholar; he seeks his rewards not in the treasures of his mind—his recompense he expects from the recognition of others, from positions of honor, from personal security. If he miscarries in this, who is more unhappy than the bread-fed scholar? He has lived, worried, and worked in vain; he has sought in vain for truth, if for him this truth not transfer itself into gold, published praise, and princely favor.[fn_1]

So, in any corrupted society, such as the Washington, D.C. which confronts President Trump, the bread scholars in the institutions of the CIA, the intelligence community, the think tanks, all of the things which people actually characterize wrongly as the Deep State—the bread scholars will go after and attempt to kill the rebels, the mavericks, the geniuses . . . every single time.

That’s the universal principle that Friedrich Schiller just told you about. If you know how these games work, you will find that there is no more emotionally violent or sadistic world than that which you find in the internal doings of university faculties on college campuses or in think tanks that set the terms of present policy and intellectual debate in Washington. Lyndon LaRouche repeatedly attacked the bread scholars. That’s why he sought out and built a youth movement based on the fact that young people have not had their free minds, or their imaginations beaten out of them yet, by a system that fears creative thought.

Oligarchy: Crush the Leaders

Lyndon LaRouche said something very similar but more far-reaching than Schiller in discussing the reasons why he was prosecuted by the same British imperial foe going after President Trump. Here is what LaRouche said in his own words, in the pamphlet he largely wrote called, “He’s a Bad Guy But We Can’t Say Why”:[fn_2]

It is in the nature of any sort of oligarchical society to descend into self-inflicted crises of existential implications. In such crises, there tends to be a quickly spreading, popular receptivity, born in desperation, to consider new ideas. I have referred to this as a “Pearl Harbor Effect”: the often sudden changes in the temper and outlook of even the majority of the population in the moment “the bomb drops.” If there are voices which might qualify as new leaders, under such circumstances, important changes may be introduced to society. If such leaders are wanting, or have been culled beforehand, the old oligarchy will either retain power, or soon regain it, and “the same old crap goes on all over again.”

EIRNS/Stuart Lewis

These and other federal, state and local agents raided the Leesburg, Virginia offices associated with Lyndon LaRouche on October 6, 1986.

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

Since human nature itself is alien to the state of being human cattle, the impulse within the population, especially among the young, to establish new institutions consistent with actual human nature, is relatively strong, especially during shocking crises, then at least for a relatively short time. Great changes for the better may occur under such circumstances. The adopted self-interest of the oligarchy is either to prevent such changes, or to adapt to them with the intent to recapture their old, customary power, if perhaps in a slightly modified form, once the population has settled into preoccupation with the banality of narrowly defined personal and local self-interests.

If one views the case of President Franklin Roosevelt, and of President John Kennedy, from this historical vantage-point, the oligarchy’s continuing hatred of Roosevelt, and of Kennedy, to the present day, is easily recognized. Then, and now, the oligarchy and its lackeys think: Prevent that from ever happening again! That reaction is virtually a matter of instinct.

This reaction operates not only against mavericks who might become President. The oligarch’s rule is to weed out potentially troublesome persons of republican impulse at all levels. Either to kill them, imprison them, defame them, or neutralize them in other ways, including such tactics as the pure and simple personal, financial, or other corruption used to manufacture the prosecution witnesses for the Boston and Alexandria trials [of the LaRouche case].

Essentially, the culpable characters in the Justice Department, the FBI, the Democratic National Committee’s bureaucracy, and the mass media, are simply lackeys; but, as one might recall from the study of feudal and other history, it is the lackeys who usually do their masters’ dirty work, and who seem, like Nazi SS men, to enjoy it the most.

So, in 1973, Wall Street’s Justice Department lackeys said: “Kill him!” When I began to play a marginal role internationally, and then ran for President, the oligarchy reacted, by judging me to be potentially even much more dangerous than in 1973. By 1982, my influence internationally had reached the level at which the oligarchs decided to eradicate me, and everything associated with me. They did so because they were frightened, because they fear that someone might do as I was committed to doing: utilize the impending global crisis to bring back the American System and its legacy. That, indeed, I will do, if I am allowed.

That, in short, is the one and only true reason for the prosecutorial and other dirty operations against me and my friends, to which I have referred here.

The True Meaning of Citizenship

Now, reflect upon the ferocious fight we undertook as soon as the British-inspired outline of the coup against Trump became apparent to us, shortly after the election. Think about the aftermath of Donald Trump explicitly referencing the American System, deliberately seeking sane and friendly relations with Russian President Vladimir Putin, endorsing the re-enactment of the Glass-Steagall Act separating investment from commercial banking, and campaigning on building huge infrastructure.

In LaRouche’s deeper view of the United States, which I have been refreshing myself about lately in order to contribute to a pamphlet we’re about to write, he says that we were given a sacred trust, dating from Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa’s proposal that the nation-state was the means to deal with the imperial and oligarchical systems that had plagued mankind throughout all of human history.

That sacred trust embodied the thoughts of the best minds of Western European civilization and was acted upon by our Revolution, by the enshrinement of its fundamental principles in the Preamble to the Constitution and in the Constitution itself, by Presidents including especially Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy, whom the British killed or tried to kill when they could not control them.

LaRouche said that making that heritage finally victorious against oligarchy was the mission of the American republic, as well as his own mission—a mission we have to complete if we are to tell our children anything good about ourselves. Today, this mission seems entirely possible because America is in revolt, and about to escalate that revolt—as never before—against our arrogant bread scholar elites of today and the imperial beast controlling them.

Shortly before this President took his oath of office, as we watched the Women’s March, with their pink pussy-cat hats and the accompanying anarchist violence, a comparison to the recent coup in Ukraine immediately popped up simultaneously in the minds of many.

That comparison wouldn’t come to those who hadn’t been schooled in history, as taught by Lyndon LaRouche or in his method of analyzing history and grand strategy.

EIR published an offprint of a feature package of EIR articles, “Obama and Soros—Nazis in Ukraine 2014—U.S. in 2017?” noting the similarities and nature of the regime-change operation that had been conducted in Ukraine—naming the names—with the regime-change offensive being conducted against the President of the United States.[fn_3]

Then, in May of 2017, LaRouche PAC published a pamphlet called, The Insurrection against the President: Or Who Really is George Soros Anyway?[fn_4]

In that pamphlet, we traced the post-war history of the British imperial takeover of the United States, and most importantly, the takeover of our culture, what LaRouche called “our corruption.” That takeover began in earnest the day Franklin Roosevelt died.

In September 2017, we published the Mueller pamphlet, Robert Mueller is an Amoral Legal Assassin: He Will Do His Job if You Let Him,[fn_5] demonstrating that the British had called for LaRouche’s head, and had used the same types of tactics, which they were now employing full-scale against the sitting President of the United States.

Veterans of the Ukraine Coup

Because of those publications and our saturation of Congress and the general public with them, and the relentless pursuit made by Representatives Devin Nunes, Mark Meadows, Jim Jordan, Doug Collins, and others, those members of Congress focused on the dissemination and use of the dirty dossier of the British agent Christopher Steele, in their investigations of the coup attempt against the President of the United States.

As a result of those publications and our mobilization, on March 17, President Trump himself re-tweeted a tweet specifically citing the British origins of the coup and situated it in the British geopolitical “Great Game” against Russia and any nation or individual attempting to develop Eurasia—the game which has persisted for centuries and of which Lyndon LaRouche was the specific target.

As a result of our efforts. and those of heroic Congressmen, whose names I have just mentioned, and a core of journalists supporting the Constitution and the President—many of whom we are still fighting with regarding Russia (in most cases on the right), or Trump (in most cases on the left)—we now know that the key players in the coup against Trump might be called “veterans of the Ukraine coup,” just as we hypothesized back in January 2017.

They are the very same people in the State Department, the Defense Department, the National Endowment for Democracy, the FBI, and the White House who were involved in the Ukraine coup; the same British circles of Sir Richard Dearlove, who were involved on the British side in the same operation. Long before Christopher Steele adapted his previous fake dossier about Russian interference in European elections, including the then-recent Brexit vote, Christopher Steele had been working as an FBI informant and a State Department asset in the Ukraine coup, targeting Paul Manafort, even back then, for destruction. That was all the way back in 2015.

Look at the full-spectrum information warfare apparatus that was turned against the President—MSNBC TV host Rachel Maddow being only a small part of it—in the daily media propaganda operations that went full throttle on November 9, 2016.

British Military Intelligence

Look also at the groupings around the British Integrity Initiative, a press operation of British military intelligence; the Democracy Integrity Initiative, which is a group here funded by George Soros and a bunch of billionaires in Silicon Valley and working with Senator Diane Feinstein’s chief FBI agent in the Senate Intelligence Committee; the Global Engagement Center at the State Department; a group calling itself StopFake; and more recently, the Committee to Investigate Russia, of Hollywood’s Rob Reiner, James Clapper, and John Brennan.

Clockwise, from upper left: CC/Cole Camplese; CC/LBJ Library/Gabriel Cristóver Pérez; LBJ Library/Jay Godwin; USCG/Richard Brahm

Clockwise, from upper left: Rachel Maddow; Movie director Rob Reiner in 2016; John Brennan; James Clapper

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

That’s the media response team that went into action on November 9, 2016 to start the coup against the President full bore; but all of that, that entire apparatus, was born of the Ukraine coup, because the British decided then and there that they had to have regime change in Russia and they needed to sell a plan for such regime change to Europe and to the United States.

Last night, the President told Fox News talk show host Sean Hannity that this is all going to come out. Believe me, I think this is indeed about to happen. Our job here is to insist that the British side of all this, is completely exposed to the American people, and that nobody succeeds in limiting this investigation to merely the top of the U.S. Department of Justice. You heard what LaRouche said about them in terms of his own case; they’re just the lackeys.

What must be made crystal clear to the American public are the reasons the British did this, first to Lyndon LaRouche, and now to Donald Trump. And most importantly, it must be made clear to our young people, which I will get to in just a moment—the full exposure of the British role in the coup and the reason for their action, set forth in LaRouche’s discussion which I just cited.

Schiller’s characterization of the bread scholars—if you think about it clearly—provides the organizing field for us, in which we can finally realize Lyndon LaRouche’s vision of the American System, something that only we can communicate; something which only we can incorporate into the thinking and acting of this Presidency. I don’t know about you, but I am really, really excited about this. I’m really excited about what I see as the opportunity opening before us now.

Provoking Young Minds

Now, as everyone should know, the game-changers in the 2020 election will be the young and the independents. These are people who are definitely not attracted to the stupid economics argued by the Republican Party baby-boomers, most of whom have full-blown infections with the British imperial disease. When Trump just opened up the issue of Space exploration as the next frontier for humanity, and put the nation on that course again right after he won the fight with Mueller, the President opened a whole new vista for our organizing and for his—which also can serve as a springboard for making LaRouche’s ideas finally hegemonic.

Kesha Rogers—as everyone knows—has done terrific work on this from Houston. If you’re thinking about it correctly, the President just expanded her audience by millions. There is nothing that stirs the American imagination more than space exploration, and the bolder we are in that respect, the better are this President’s chances of re-election on our program.

You’ve all probably heard about Jackson Oswalt, the Tennessee kid who, at age 13, perfected a fusion reaction in his garage. When I researched this, after I was told about it the other day, it turns out that there are lots of teenagers who not only are doing this, but are engaged in other areas of fundamental science. Think about how many more kids, bored by video games and decadence, as young Jackson Oswalt was, will now move forward and declare themselves because of the President’s adoption of the mission to Mars. They will make that mission their own if we push it exactly the right way.

Lyndon LaRouche counseled that we had to embrace our God-given mission here in the United States; we had to end our corruption, our littleness, and know and extirpate our imperial enemy. He insisted that we are better than our current state, because of the shoulders we stand upon from Western European civilization, and with that heritage comes an enormous moral duty. He said it was our sacred duty to situate ourselves as he did, in the great minds of history which created and founded this nation. So, I think, because of the fight we have made to date, and the courage of the maverick President Donald Trump, the doors are now wide open to us to accomplish exactly this mission.

Dennis Speed, the moderator of the weekly Fireside Chat, before opening up the microphone for discussion, referred the audience back to President Jack Kennedy’s famous words of May 25, 1961 to a joint session of Congress:

Now it is time to take longer strides—time for a great new American enterprise—time for this nation to take a clearly leading role in space achievement, which in many ways may hold the key to our future on Earth.

I believe we possess all the resources and talents necessary. But the facts of the matter are that we have never made the national decisions or marshaled the national resources required for such leadership. We have never specified long-range goals on an urgent time schedule, or managed our resources and our time so as to ensure their fulfillment. . . .

We go into space because whatever mankind must undertake, free men must fully share. . . .

I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth. . . .

[fn_1]. Friedrich Schiller: Poet of Freedom, Vol. II. Schiller Institute, Washington, D.C., 1988, pp. 255-256. [back to text for fn_1]

[fn_2]. Reprinted in EIR magazine, Vol. 27, No. 10, March 10, 2000, pp. 10-31. https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2000/eirv27n10-20000310/eirv27n10-20000310_010-usa_vs_lyndon_larouche_hes_a_bad-lar.pdf [back to text for fn_2]

[fn_3]. See EIR magazine, Vol. 44, No. 8, February 24, 2017, pp. 4-20. https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2017/eirv44n08-20170224/04-21_4408.pdf [back to text for fn_3]

[fn_4]. Reprinted May 22, 2017 on the LaRouchePAC website at https://larouchepac.com/20170522/insurrection-against-president-or-who-really-george-soros-anyway [back to text for fn_4]

[fn_5]. Reprinted September 27, 2017 on the LaRouchePAC website at https://larouchepac.com/20170927/robert-mueller-amoral-legal-assassin-he-will-do-his-job-if-you-let-him [back to text for fn_5]

The Jan. 27, 1989 Jailing of Lyndon LaRouche

Defined an Era, Which Now Must End

Sign the Petition to Exonerate LaRouche at lpac.co/exonerate

The False Charges Behind the Conviction of Lyndon LaRouche

Exposed by former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark and LaRouche’s trial attorney, Odin Anderson

The following was presented in public hearings convened by the Commission to Investigate Human Rights Violations on Aug. 31 and Sept. 1, 1995 in Vienna, Virginia, to investigate allegations of gross misconduct by the United States Department of Justice.

We present here excerpts from the testimony—under questioning by Alabama’s most renowned civil rights attorney, J.L. Chestnut, Jr., regarding the vendetta against Lyndon LaRouche—of LaRouche’s attorney Odin Anderson, and former U.S. Attorney General, Ramsey Clark, who represented LaRouche on appeal. When Chestnut first met LaRouche and learned about the circumstances of his case, he remarked: “You might as well be black and in Alabama.”

Testimony of Odin Anderson

Odin Anderson: I have represented Lyndon LaRouche since 1984, at which time he was directly targeted by the Department of Justice, through the U.S. Attorney’s office in Boston, although there is a history of many years prior to that.

Why is this case of Lyndon LaRouche of interest to you busy senators and representatives of color, who have very busy agendas, and a lot of work to be done for your own constituencies?

Because political targeting is political targeting, whether it’s on the basis of race, which we see constantly, and you deal with it every day of your lives, before you became elected representatives and certainly now, in a different way, or for other political reasons; or political advocacy of various kinds, if it is not of the sort that is favored and smiled upon by the federal government, becomes the object, under the direction of the Justice Department, of targeting and, ultimately, prosecution. And that’s what happened in the case of Lyndon LaRouche, and it’s what happened in many of the other cases, if not all of the other cases, that you’ve been addressing this morning. . . .

Probably the best way to demonstrate the government’s venal behavior, and the unconstitutional activities undertaken directed out of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, is to show you their own documents, and read to you their own words.

Figure 1

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

This [Figure 1], is an FBI memorandum from the SAC, who was the Special Agent-in-Charge of the New York Field Office of the FBI, to the director. It’s dated March 1969. It requests authorization of the director to issue a false leaflet, to stir up antagonisms between these various factions of SDS [Students for a Democratic Society]. Now I’m sure that’s a tactic familiar to all of you, if in slightly different form. They want to disseminate this leaflet under false cover, to various of these groups and stir up as much controversy among them, hopefully undermining their ability to act in concert and getting them into faction fights which would destroy their efficiency and cohesion.

So, in 1969 and the 1970s, this was the kind of activity which was going on against the LaRouche political movement and many others, including people you’re well acquainted with personally.

Figure 2

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

The next document [Figure 2], is to the Director of the FBI, again from the SAC in New York, regarding the named subject, Lyndon Hermyle LaRouche, Jr., also known as Lyn Marcus, as they suggest. This is one of the most incredible pieces of FBI material that I have ever seen. And I have to stress something to you, all of you who were involved in the effort. And you’ll ask: What is our agenda? How do we fight against these wrongs, these evils emanating from the very center of our government?

One of the difficulties, is that you can’t get the proofs. Where are the proofs? The proofs are hidden. It has taken us, literally, years. I appreciate the kind words, but my time is de minimus, compared to the time of all of the others who have contributed to the effort to bring this case to the point at which it currently exists. An unsatisfactory point, but a point, nonetheless, where we have established evidence which clearly demonstrates, to any honest and unbiased viewer, the level of government misconduct that went into this entire witch trial of Lyndon LaRouche.

J.L. Chestnut: What is the CPUSA referred to in the document?

Odin Anderson: That’s the Communist Party of the United States. What this memorandum suggests, is that the Communist Party has let the FBI know, that they want to eliminate Lyndon LaRouche for their political reasons. They consider him to be a politically dangerous person, and the Communist Party wants to eliminate him.

If you look at the bottom, New York proposes submitting a blind memorandum to the Daily World, to foster these efforts. Here is the FBI climbing in bed with the Communist Party, in order to effect the elimination of Lyndon LaRouche from the political scene. I think we all know what that means.

So, moving into the ’80s: Henry Kissinger, whom we all know by name and some probably remember by reputation and actions, was a very powerful man. Mr. LaRouche took exception to his policies, which he considered to be genocidal, particularly in the context of the financial policies and the conditionalities imposed on the Third World, in order to get monies from the World Bank, and got into a serious row with Mr. Kissinger.

Figure 3

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

And Mr. Kissinger writes [Figure 3], on his letterhead, to William Webster, the Director of the FBI. They had recently had a lovely social occasion together at the place called the Grove, where these powers associate and frolic around in various curious ways. And, after that, he appreciates having seen him there, and asks for the assistance of Bill Webster in dealing with the LaRouche menace. . . .

Figure 4

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

A short period thereafter, [Oliver] “Buck” Revell, who was the head of counterintelligence for the FBI at the time, is sent this memorandum [Figure 4] by William Webster, who had been contacted by David Abshire of PFIAB, that’s the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. And the same parties, Henry Kissinger and his colleagues, are now raising before PFIAB, the question as to whether LaRouche, because he seems to have funding from sources that they don’t understand, is possibly operating as a foreign intelligence agent, and they want to look into this.

Now, what that does—and the words are bad enough, but the reality is terrifying—is this triggers Executive Order 12333, which allows virtually any form of conduct, any activity, to be undertaken, provided it’s under this national security cover. So this was the beginning of a national security-covered operation against Mr. LaRouche and his colleagues. Why do we have these documents? Not because they gave them to us. They hid them from us. We finally, after years of fighting FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] litigation cases, were able to peel off small pieces of this grapefruit. There’s still a lot left down there. We haven’t even got to the seeds yet, we’re still working through the pulp.

The common denominator among all of these cases [being reviewed by the Commission here], is twofold. It’s, as I said, political targeting, and it’s the Criminal Division of the Justice Department. Can you imagine a more frightening thing, than to realize, that among the worst abuses of our constitutional rights as a people and as individuals, are, in fact, being planned and directed out of the very heart of the agency that’s supposed to be protecting those rights?

You probably also know, from your own experiences with colleagues who have run afoul of the situations that have been discussed [in these Hearings], that the first place they try you, is in the press. Only then do they try you in the courts, once they’ve set the stage, once they’ve poisoned the minds of the community against you. Then they haul you into court, where you can’t get a fair trial, because the jurors who are sitting there, have been told for days, months, years, or millennia, what a bad person you are, and what horrible offenses you’ve committed against the moral or social fabric of the community.

Well, that’s precisely what happened in the LaRouche case, probably more so than in any other case.

Figure 5

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

This [Figure 5], is an article from the Boston Herald [May 5, 1988], and I’m only showing it to you for one reason, not because of the highlight, “LaRouche Jury Would Have Voted ‘Not Guilty,’ ” although that’s true, and does come out of the words of the jury foreman who was interviewed. But, in the first line of text, there are some very important words from the foreman:

“We would have acquitted everybody at this point, and that’s based on prosecution evidence,” said foreman Dashawetz. “There was too much question of government misconduct in what was happening to the LaRouche campaign.”

“Government misconduct.” Very seldom do you get a jury to see it, because the government fights you tooth and nail. They lie, they cover up evidence, they, in fact, deny information to their own agents, so that their agents won’t be in a position to have to intentionally not disclose it. These are common tactics, and that’s what happened here. Fortunately, in our case, we were able to show enough of it to the jury, so that the jury got the smell.

However, the government wasn’t about to quit, particularly having taken what was a serious public relations beating, so they decided to switch forums, come down to a much more favorable forum, in fact the most favorable forum, the Eastern District of Virginia: the so-called “rocket docket,” the home of almost every government agency and government contractor in the country, with a few other pockets here and there. . . .

Ramsey Clark, former Attorney General of the United States, who has been with me on all of the appeals, joined the effort just after the sentencing of Mr. LaRouche and his colleagues in 1989. Recently, he wrote a letter to the Attorney General, asking for a departmental review of the LaRouche case, and I’d like to read you some portions of his letter:

Dear Attorney General Reno,

I have been an attorney in this case since shortly after the defendants were sentenced in January 1989 and appeared as co-counsel on appeal and on the subsequent motions and appeals in proceedings under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255 and F.R.Cr.P. Rule 33. I bring this matter 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. Three courts have now condemned the Department’s conduct in this prosecutorial campaign. The result has been a tragic miscarriage of justice which at this time can only be corrected by an objective review and courageous action by the Department of Justice.

Testimony of Ramsey Clark

Ramsey Clark: I’ll start and end with the case of Lyndon LaRouche and his co-defendants, not because it’s the Alpha and Omega, although it’s about as close as a case gets to the potential perfidy of justice, but because it shows how bad it can be, and yet, it has, as so very, very few of these cases ever do, a positive side that we have to consider. . . .

I had followed the earlier case in Boston, which, by any measure, was an extremely peculiar case, both in its charges and its prosecution, and in its history. I knew the judge there [Robert E Keeton] as a fellow Texan, and his brother, Page Keeton, had been dean of the law school where I started out, down at the University of Texas. The Boston judge is one of the old school, that doesn’t like tricks, falsity, or injustice, and he became outraged with the prosecution, and did a lot. I can’t tell you he did all that a judge could have done. I believe Odin [Anderson] would agree, though, he did a lot. And not many judges, who come through a political conditioning and process, have the courage to stand up to the power of the Executive branch, to the FBI and others, and say the things that he did. And that was almost an early end to a malicious prosecution.

But in what was a complex and pervasive utilization of law enforcement, prosecution, media, and non-governmental organizations focussed on destroying an enemy, this case must be number one. There are some, where the government itself may have done more and more wrongfully over a period of time; but the very networking and combination of federal, state, and local agencies, of Executive and even some Legislative and Judicial branches, of major media and minor local media, and of influential lobbyist types, the ADL [Anti-Defamation League] pre-eminently, this case takes the prize.

The purpose can only be seen as destroying—more than a political movement, 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 the LaRouche case, they’re book people. I have to confess to an intellectual weakness: I find reading easier than thinking, so I read constantly, nearly blinded myself from too much reading. I’ve got 15,000 books at home, read most of them, unfortunately. As you can tell, I haven’t learned much, but I haven’t stopped yet. These are book people. They had publishing houses going on. Important publications. Non-profit stuff. This is what they were about: ideas, information, social change. Meeting the needs of human people all over the world, humanity all over the world. We’re going to have a billion more people before the end of this millennium, century, decade, and the vast majority, 80%, are going to have beautiful, darker skin. And they’re going to live short lives, short lives of sickness, hunger, pain, ignorance, and violence, unless we act radically. And these books have ideas. Some will work, some won’t work, but they’re ideas. They can be “tested in the marketplace,” as we used to say.

And the government came in with a false bankruptcy claim, against a non-profit publishing house, and shut ’em down! What’s the First Amendment worth? “We’ll silence you, you’ll have no books out there.”

And not only that: Then they took people who were contributing and supposed to be paid back their loans to the publisher, and tried to prosecute, falsely, on it. They put on witnesses, to give false testimony. From the tens and tens of thousands of contributors, and thousands of people who gave loans, they come up with a baker’s dozen, roughly, 13, 14, 15 people, who got their feelings hurt, perhaps, and some who were mean-spirited enough to lie about it, and who didn’t get their money back, although they were being paid back. Because anybody can have a financial crunch, where you can’t pay back.

Imagine what would happen to political campaigns in this country, if you enforced law strictly against those who are raising money like this, by inquiring about all the people who gave money, whether they got what they wanted, what they expected and whether they were misled about it, or anything else. Nobody could run for office. . . .

I read the record. In addition to reading books, I read lots of records, from trials. Absolutely no evidence to support a conviction there. If you take it all, if you exclude the parts that were false or venomous, there’s not even a shell. But they had to say that this noble enterprise, agree or not with it, was corrupt. Corrupt. “Have nothing to do with it. It’s corrupt.” Nobody respects financial or other corruption. Destroy ’em that way.

They were put to trial, without any chance to prepare their case, and they made a valiant effort, and got consecutive sentences. Unbelievable! When the government will use that much force, that much energy, that much of its resources, to destroy an idea or movement of people.

So this is one reason to look at what’s happening here. I don’t know much about it, I just see it from afar. I’m just a lawyer. But, talk about getting heavy body blows! This Lyndon LaRouche and his supporters and people who work with him—heavy body blows. Five mean years in prison. Constantly worried about health, and all the rest. Continuing prosecutions, with unbelievable sentences: 77 years, 44 years. You can’t say draconian. They’re essentially psychological death sentences, if not physical death sentences. Constantly coming at you. And there they are. And here we are.

‘THANK YOU FOR YOUR VIGILANCE’

Rhode Island House of Representatives Honors the Memory of Lyndon LaRouche

CC

Rhode Island State House, Providence, Rhode Island.

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

March 31—The Rhode Island House of Representatives voted on March 26 to express its condolences at the passing of Lyndon LaRouche. Rep. Justin Price rose from his desk and said:

Mr. Lyndon LaRouche, who basically was a political prisoner and jailed some 30-odd years ago . . . passed away Feb. 12. Unfortunately for him, his vilification from the media and the political long arm left him in jail . . . so, God rest his soul.

I’d just like to recognize Cloret Carl up in the balcony there. She’s from the Schiller Institute, representing the Ad Hoc Committee to Exonerate Lyndon LaRouche, and this young lady has been friends with Lyndon LaRouche for 47 years and advocates for him still to this day. I would just like to acknowledge her being here . . . saying thank you for your vigilance on what you’re doing . . . thank you Cloret, thank you.

The proceedings were live-streamed.

The “House Resolution Expressing Condolences” was approved by the legislators and the House adjourned in memory of Lt. Anthony Sisco, Jr., Francis Sisco, Robert L. Kinney, and Lyndon LaRouche, followed by a moment of silence.

Cloret Carl Ferguson

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

Cloret Carl Ferguson, who initiated this process, spoke with EIR about the activities of the Ad Hoc Committee to Exonerate Lyndon LaRouche. She told us that she has been in contact with many people and decided to speak with Representatives at the State Legislatures of Massachusetts and Rhode Island about exonerating LaRouche.

In noting the “poetic truth and power” of what happened on March 26, she said:

I don’t know if your readers know this, but the Rhode Island Dome, the dome over the Rhode Island State House, is modeled on the marble dome of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome, and it’s one of three such domes, that I know of, modeled after St. Peter’s Basilica. When I think of St. Peter’s Basilica, I think of the fresco by Rafael, known as the “Liberation of St. Peter,” depicting St. Peter being liberated by an angel while his guards are asleep.

There is a beautiful irony here, in that this dome of the Rhode Island Legislature is modeled after the Basilica. Another of these great marble domes modeled after St. Peter’s Basilica is the one over the Minnesota State House. Minnesota is where LaRouche was unjustly incarcerated. There is a poetic truth that rings through, given that LaRouche was incarcerated in Minnesota.

In the Rhode Island legislature, I was happy to experience the workings of a group of legislators focussed on the idea that the people’s well-being should be placed above all other concerns. It is fitting that they honored LaRouche, an individual of international significance, who in his life’s work, embodies the idea of always trying to foster the divine spark of human beings. This is the idea embodied in our Constitution and in our republic.

The Day’s Events and Beyond

Ferguson said that she stayed through the day’s legislative session at the urging of Representative Price, who recognized her presence in the gallery from the floor, noting that she was part of an organized effort to clear LaRouche’s name. He referenced the Schiller Institute and the decades of work for LaRouche’s policies. The representatives all stood up and applauded. She vividly described her reaction:

It was quite strange to me! Not because it wasn’t right to do, but because I had never experienced that type of situation before, where people I don’t know, or an elected body of people, would respond in that way to someone trying to right a wrong. The sense was clear, that if someone had been working so hard for justice for an individual, then that individual must have been an incredible person.

Representatives of the Ad Hoc Committee are contacting other state legislatures, and prominent people of courage and integrity internationally—lawyers and writers, other prominent individuals—with a mission to make clear that removing the tarnish of this unjust act on America’s legacy—America’s image, is more critical than ever.

Raphael, 1514

“The Deliverance of Saint Peter,” fresco in the Apostolic Palace, Vatican City.

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

We have to contact everybody, people who don’t know LaRouche, as well as those who do. They should all be given the opportunity to clear the name of our country—and to free themselves! Because they are in jail! They are the slaves, not LaRouche. By explaining and getting people to think about LaRouche’s life work, that’s going to help them understand that the solution rests with them. LaRouche could have run away; he could have gone somewhere else, but he did not.

Many who have heard about the March 26 motion to honor LaRouche are very happy, but not surprised, by what Rhode Island did. Ferguson reflected on the “sea change” unfolding:

There’s a clear sense that this should be done. It captures the spirit of the time we’re in. People are realizing that they are now free to say what’s on their minds. In the wake of the Mueller Report’s showing no collusion between Russia and Donald Trump or his Campaign to affect the outcome of the 2016 election, and in the wake of the progress of the New Silk Road, freedom of speech is returning to our United States.

Ferguson noted the surprise of some, to meet an African-American woman who had been a friend of LaRouche and an advocate for his policies for 47 years. One of the newspaper editors to whom she had written a letter concerning the urgent necessity of exonerating LaRouche, called to tell her that he was going to run her letter, saying that she had said something important, and it should be heard by his readers. She explained:

The point I made which impressed him is that even if I weren’t African American, which I am, I still would be fighting for this man, because he represented everyone, not just some particular group. He was, as Friedrich Schiller said, a World Citizen, and that idea, for someone of color to fight for this, is important for people to see. Because LaRouche has been so slandered in the press, they don’t expect it. It angered me then and it angers me to this day, over a month after his passing, that the press says these disgusting lies about LaRouche’s character. Because I, as a personal friend, have known him to represent everybody; that he tried to bring out the best in everyone. That is what my whole interaction with him for 47 years was about, personally and professionally. And I think that’s what surprised some of these individuals and elected officials in Rhode Island—that a person of color has represented LaRouche’s policies all these years, and still does.

Rhode Island State House

The House Chamber on March 26, 2019.

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

In the 1990s, hundreds of state legislators called for Lyndon LaRouche to be released from prison and for his exoneration. LaRouche supporters brought the LaRouche case to city councils, to trade unions, to civil rights organizations, and to all sorts of civic and religious groups. Ferguson said that at that time,

along with other LaRouche activists, Pastor Roberts, who was then a very active LaRouche citizen-candidate, and I went to testify before the Newark Municipal Council. We were told they didn’t want to hear from our official representative, saying, “No, we want you and her to talk.” So, without preparation, Pastor Roberts and I had to say why we were there representing LaRouche. I remember one of the Councilmen who signed our petition asked me, “What does this man mean to you? Why are you doing this?” I just told him what I just said to you.

Ferguson closed our discussion with these words: “I was just the medium. I was there at the right time and the right place.” When she first spoke to Rep. Price several months ago, he told her that he knew about Lyndon LaRouche, that he had met LaRouche organizers in Rhode Island, organizing the public:

He met us doing what we always do, what only LaRouche people do, which is set up a table on the side of the road and talk to people about what they need to know to become real citizens and what they therefore need to do. It’s important to say, here, that it wasn’t me that made it happen. There is a process unfolding, the direction of things from our interaction that day—my interaction with him and the state house proceedings—it was the right time and the right place, and he did what was right.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE WEBCAST

Collapse of Russiagate

Exposes the British Hand Behind

Attempted Coup in U.S.A.

This is an edited transcript of the Schiller Institute’s New Paradigm Webcast of March 28, 2019. A video of this webcast is available.

Harley Schlanger: Hello, I’m Harley Schlanger from the Schiller Institute. Welcome to our webcast with our founder and President Helga Zepp-LaRouche. Today is March 28, 2019.

There have been some really striking developments in last two weeks. We did not do a webcast last week, so we’ll try to catch you up on some of them, starting with the most important: the release of the Mueller report, in which Special Counsel Robert Mueller admitted that he could find no evidence of collusion by Donald Trump or by his campaign with the Russians. Mueller refused to make a decision as to whether or not there was obstruction [of his investigation], but at the same time, it left the lie in the report that the Russians interfered in the 2016 U.S. election.

But these truthful findings—that neither President Trump nor anyone associated with his campaign colluded with Russia—opens a tremendous opportunity now to drive a stake through the heart of the British Empire. So Helga, why don’t you give us your assessment of the Mueller report and its aftermath?

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: It is quite remarkable that the accusers were not even able to fabricate some evidence. Two years of what Trump characterized many times as a “witch hunt,” did not lead to the result promised by his accusers. I must say that it’s quite remarkable that Trump withstood all of this, and in a tweet, he said that this must never happen again, because he would not know of many people who could handle this—and that’s probably true. Because the coordinated campaign against him was international: It was media, it was intelligence services, it was establishments of other countries. He’s now free of that, and in one of his tweets, he did refer to the fact that he’s quite aware of the role of the British in all of this.

This is a very important development. Attorney General William Barr also said there is no evidence of obstruction of justice, and that is quite important. But the most serious argument on obstruction was given by Pat Lang, who said, given the fact that there was no Russian collusion, there was no crime—and where there was no crime, there is no obstruction of justice. That says it all.

Gage Skidmore

Devin Nunes, ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee.

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

A Post Mueller Report World

We now just have to see how this unfolds. This will have all kinds of immediate and medium-term ramifications. Republican Congressman Devin Nunes, the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, said on Tuesday that next week he will make criminal referrals to the Attorney General to investigate “bias”—political corruption—demanding that he go after what Nunes calls “dirty cops” in the FBI and in the Department of Justice. There is a chorus of people who say “now is the time for reckoning,” now we have to look at who did that, who paid for it, Nunes also said that he wants to see the classified “scope memorandum,” the 2017 document in which Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein laid out the parameters of Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation, several months after he had appointed Mueller.

This will be a very interesting fight. But as much as this is a reason to be relieved, we should not let down our guard. As long as the British Empire and this apparatus which went after Trump—in what some people correctly call the biggest scandal in American history—unless this apparatus is dismantled, they will find new ways to once again disrupt everything.

President Trump is absolutely right in his desire, and actions, to end the permanent wars around the world, to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan and Syria. But meanwhile, the actions of his Vice President Mike Pence, National Security Advisor John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, in the Venezuelan situation, carry the danger of pulling Trump into regime change there.

White House/Shealah Craighead

President Trump met with Fabiana Rosales, wife of Juan Guaidó, the self-declared President of Venezuela, sitting at his right.

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

Yesterday Pence apparently walked in with Fabiana Rosales, the wife of the self-appointed so-called “President” of Venezuela Juan Guaidó, and gave an ad hoc press conference at the White House, then Trump gave a press conference together with her. This is a story still unfolding, so I don’t have a final assessment on it. Pompeo called Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov two days ago, and warned Russia not to meddle in Venezuela, that the United States would not sit idly by. Lavrov answered by warning the United States not to make a coup against the legitimate government of Venezuela, that this violates international law, the UN Charter and so forth.

But as you can see, this is an extremely dangerous situation, and one can only hope that the people who demand that a political solution is found will prevail. Gen. (ret.) Fernando Azevedo e Silva, the Brazilian Defense Minister, said that Brazil will have absolutely no participation in any military approach, but this ad hoc press conference in the White House is worrisome, because Guaidó’s wife was fully saying, “children are dying,” which probably is very true, but the pretext of a humanitarian intervention is really a very dangerous moment.

Otherwise, I think President Trump has to be lauded for having withstood this incredible Russiagate. But we have to be very attentive and give him support so that he does not fall into these kinds of scenario traps, which could very quickly bring about a confrontation with Russia.

LPAC-TV

Jason Ross interviewed former NSA Technical Director Bill Binney on March 4, 2019.

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

Prosecute the Coup Makers

Schlanger: Helga, that’s one of the reasons it’s important not to drop the fight against the overall intent behind the Mueller investigation, which we said from the beginning was not so much about Trump, but about Trump’s desire to end the geopolitical confrontation with Russia and China. And this is clear, because all the coverage of the report says that the Russian interference is still clear—even Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said we’ve got to watch out for Russia.

And now we see this new coalition coming together—which is not new at all, it’s the old neo-cons—but the “Committee on the Present Danger” has been reconstituted, this time targetting China. What can you say about that?

Zepp-LaRouche: The promise of Trump fulfilling the potential of improving relations with Russia and China was what the Mueller investigation was all about, what the Christopher Steele/British intelligence operation was all about. I think it is important to keep that up front and make sure that all the documents related to the British role in this scandal be made public. It’s now the time to interview former National Security Agency Technical Director William Binney, who has given the absolute, undeniable forensic evidence that there was no Russian hacking, which had been the cornerstone of the whole “meddling” charge, and therefore, Russiagate has turned into “Muellergate.” I think now is the time to investigate what William Binney has produced, because that is one of the very important proofs which have to come out.

Maria Zakharova, the spokeswoman of the Russian Foreign Ministry, has said that now that the Mueller investigation is over, that Russia will make a very thorough investigation of what happened with this anti-Russia propaganda campaign, also of those masquerading as journalists, in reality being part of this intelligence operation, that this will be investigated very thoroughly and must be presented to the international public.

But this is a war and a half, so I can only tell people, do not be complacent: This is a battle which is not at all yet over.

Schlanger: For people who want to see what Binney said, there’s an excellent interview with him by Jason Ross that’s available on the LaRouche PAC site. I interviewed him yesterday, and he continued to emphasize the importance of exposing the lies that are told by the intelligence community and the role of the British in this, to disrupt a positive U.S.-Russian relationship.

Italian Undersecretary of State Michele Geraci speaks at the BOAO Forum on March 29, 2019.

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

China and Italy, and France, and . . .

Now, the other development that’s quite striking is Xi Jinping’s trip to Europe, first to Italy, where a Memo of Understanding between China and Italy was signed; and then to Monaco; and finally to France. It looks as though the question of the New Silk Road, as you’ve always said, “is unstoppable.” And people such as French President Emmanuel Macron and Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel may be realizing that. Is that your assessment of what happened this last week?

Zepp-LaRouche: Yes. Let me first say a word about the Italian part of Xi Jinping’s European visit. This was truly remarkable, because there was huge pressure on the Italian government to not sign the Memorandum of Understanding, including coming from Garrett Marquis, the spokesman for the U.S. National Security Council, saying there will be no economic advantage for Italy; it will ruin the Italian reputation forever, globally.

Italy signed the Memorandum of Understanding anyway, with the architect of this program, Michele Geraci, Undersecretary of State at the Ministry of Economic Development, saying that the deals signed in the context of Xi Jinping’s visit are just the beginning. These were all agreements which were made out long, long before, and now, with the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), a whole new phase of economic and scientific cooperation will start.

While in Italy, Xi Jinping went to Palermo, Sicily. Everybody has been stressing the enormous potential of southern Italy and Sicily, which is very close to Africa, and therefore can become a bridge for Chinese-Italian cooperation in the industrialization of Africa. I think that is one of the most important aspects of this arrangement, because it shows the way to deal with the migrant crisis and how to, in a human way, deal with a problem which the European Union (EU) has been utterly incapable of dealing with.

This MOU was a big breakthrough. And then Xi Jinping went on to Monaco and then to Paris, where he met with Merkel, Macron, and Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission. The Europeans are clearly in a dilemma because of their frictions with the United States, and unfortunately, they don’t differentiate between Trump and other elements of his administration. But, as Mrs. Merkel was saying, they do not want to live in a unilateral world, but they want to build a multipolar world. And given the strategic realities, there is no way that can be done without having an alliance or some cooperation, in depth, with China.

EC President Juncker (l.) and German Chancellor Merkel (r.) joined French President Macron and Chinese President Xi for talks in Paris on March 25, 2019.

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

China, after all, is still the fastest growing economy in the world. For the EU, China is the second-largest trade partner after the United States; for China, the EU is the largest trade partner—so I think the dynamic is clearly going toward the integration of all of this.

Immediately after the visit of Xi Jinping, Michele Geraci went on to the March 26-29 Boao Forum for Asia, in Boao, Hainan Province, China—the Chinese equivalent of the Davos forum in Switzerland—where he gave a very upbeat interview to the South China Morning Post, characterizing the critics of Italy as just jealous. He predicted that it will be just a short time before every European country will have joined, step by step, and he said, there are already two more countries already in the pipeline, ready to sign Memoranda of Understanding. So he was very optimistic.

Other people from Italy, as well as Geraci, have said that this is not directed against Italy’s allies. Italy’s number one ally is the United States. and Italy can play a very important role of mediation between the other European countries and China, between the United States and Europe, and between the United States and China.

So I think that Italy has a completely new self-confidence in that; and we will hear a lot more, because they also expect to come out stronger in the coming European Parliament election in May.

This has put Macron and Merkel—and Juncker for that matter—in a position where, on the one side they cannot deny the economic advantages. For example, Macron signed deals with China worth EU 40 billion. EU 20 billion of this was for European projects like China’s agreement to purchase 300 Airbuses—the Airbus is a German-French-Italian-British consortium, and the sale of 300 Airbuses is not a trivial deal—but then EU20 billion more was for other deals between France and China. I think very important is a joint space agreement, under which France will now participate in the next lunar mission of China, the Chang’e-6, to bring back samples from the Moon. Also there is nuclear cooperation and other high-technology cooperation.

A New Committee on the China ‘Threat’

The power of the changing facts on the ground, so to speak, is seen in some of the changes from Macron and Merkel. It is very clear that Europe has absolutely no future without cooperation with China. And one can only hope that the efforts by the neo-cons to ruin that,— you mentioned the new version of the Committee on the Present Danger. They say that the old Committee on the Present Danger helped to defeat the Soviet Union and that now the big existential enemy is China, and therefore all efforts have to be directed against China.

This is really, really bad, because this is the old geopolitical thinking, which can only lead the world into the Thucydides trap, and you can really see who are the paid media who spout that line: On the same day that this “Committee on the Present Danger: China” (CPD) was founded, the German tabloid Bildzeitung devoted almost its entire page 2 to eight lies against China. Which don’t hold! Nobody who has any dealings with China believes it, but the propaganda effort is absolutely unabated.

Schlanger: Your mentioning of Bildzeitung brings to mind this fight of two paradigms, which is increasingly in the open. One of the lies is that China is setting up a “debt trap” for the countries that work with them. But there just was a statement from the Port Director of Djibouti, who said that these accusations are “compete nonsense, as benefits generated from infrastructure construction will far exceed the investment.” The ability to continue these lies is being taken on very directly by the Chinese, but it’s crucial that we, as the Schiller Institute, and our supporters continue to expose the operations.

The other thing you mentioned, Helga, was the French-Chinese space cooperation. Yesterday, President Trump made a very significant announcement, committing the United States to return to the Moon. How do you see that as possibly fitting into collaboration with China, but also its importance, in contrast to the dead-end existentialism of the Green New Deal?

Defend the Earth, Reach for the Stars

Zepp-LaRouche: This is very good, because when President Trump had first announced his space plans with his Space Policy Directive 1 on December 11, 2017, it was very, very optimistic, and it just so happened that it occurred on the very same day we were having a conference commemorating and celebrating the life and work of the German-American space pioneer Krafft Ehricke. And then came into the conference, the announcement of Trump using almost exactly the same Hubble photos of the galaxies and so forth, so it really caused incredible excitement. He has now announced that the United States plans to be back on the Moon by 2024, have a sustainable presence on the Moon by 2028, looking toward Moon villages, and will create a new a Moon-to-Mars Mission Directorate to “and establish a foundation for an eventual mission to Mars” and beyond.

That’s exactly the kind of optimistic future orientation we need. Trump also mentioned that the United States will do this with international partners. I think that is extremely important, because obviously, the universe is so big—2 trillion galaxies have been found so far—that there really is the need for the entire human species to cooperate on these kinds of projects.

This is a very positive step in the right direction and shows how utterly stupid and incompetent the proponents of the Green New Deal are, who believe that we live in an Earth-bound system with scarce resources. But our future is not limited to Earth! With space travel, and the enormous potential to go to higher energy flux-densities, such as fusion. The entire Universe is ours. One project of the Chinese, in which the French are now participating, is bringing samples of helium-3 back from the far side of the Moon, as a potential fuel for fusion power on Earth.

That is the future, and hopefully we can move civilization as quickly as possible through that kind of international cooperation as the only basis for peace.

Schlanger: The Baltimore Sun of February 4 carried an op-ed on the danger to the Earth from asteroid collisions, saying that this is a much more serious threat that anything that the so-called “man-made climate change” represents. It brings to my mind the importance of the proposal that your husband, Lyndon LaRouche, made on cooperation; that we cannot just sit around and feel good by working with other countries, but that we have an immediate, urgent and common task—both to explore, but also to defend the Earth—his idea of a “Strategic Defense of Earth.”

This Baltimore Sun article raises the question that he had in mind: How do we work as a human race to defend the Earth and expand? Helga, I’d like your thoughts on that.

Zepp-LaRouche: The author of the op-ed, Douglas MacKinnon, a White House and Pentagon space consultant, pointed to the fact that in December of last year, an asteroid exploded only 15 miles above the Earth, with an explosive force ten times that of the nuclear bomb detonated over Hiroshima, Japan in World War II. Now, from the standpoint of distances in space, 15 miles is nothing! It could have just as easily exploded much nearer, or on Earth, causing tremendous damage. He said the danger to human civilization coming from such asteroids is a zillion times bigger than climate change, but he said the political situation today is so toxic that once you question “man-made climate change,” then you are immediately put on the list of some group as an enemy. And that’s unfortunately the reality of it.

I think we should again take this warning by this asteroid explosion—like we should have taken a similar event in Chelyabinsk, Russia five years ago, in 2013—as an immediate focus and motivation, to organize serious international cooperation on the defense of our planet and ourselves against asteroids, comets, and other dangers coming from outer space. My husband, many years ago, proposed this kind of international cooperation, involving Russia, China, the United States, and India, for the cooperation with other nations—to devote our energies to the common aims of mankind. Asteroid defense is one of the many problems we have to face together.

Exoneration of LaRouche

Schlanger: And this brings us back around to what we’ve been discussing for the last 25 minutes, which is that there is a potential now that we can move ahead into this new paradigm of cooperation, into great power agreements to end the unipolar world, which would be a fulfillment of what Lyndon LaRouche stood for his whole life, and what our movement is going to continue the fight for.

And with the issuance of the Mueller report, and as it becomes clearer to more Americans that there are criminals in the FBI, in the Justice Department—and have been for years—it again brings up the exoneration of your husband. We are conducting a worldwide campaign, a mobilization, that one of the best ways President Trump can follow up what he’s calling an exoneration from the lies of the British and the neo-cons, would be to exonerate Lyndon LaRouche. If you’d like to say something about that, Helga, I think this would be an appropriate moment.

Zepp-LaRouche: Well, it’s not just that justice must be given to my husband who, despite his innocence, was prosecuted by the same apparatus as the one that has been going after Trump over the last two years—but it is the policy of war and peace. As it happened, in his final report Robert Mueller did not produce any evidence for collusion with Russia regarding the 2016 election, or even obstruction of Mueller’s “investigation,” which is a big defeat for them, and obviously, for all the people who hysterically pushed that line, they ended up being completely discredited.

But, if the people who conducted this operation against Lyndon LaRouche and now against Donald Trump remain in place, even if one aspect of their scenario is defeated,— But I think you will see, as you see in the Venezuela situation, they will try to come up again and again with new aspects—as a matter of fact, the Venezuela escalation, I would say, is the continuation of the coup against Trump “with other colors.”

If you understand that the aim is to prevent Trump from having collaboration and good relations with Russia and China, and that the Venezuela crisis could immediately be another such crisis-point, ruining that relation, then you understand that these forces must be overcome and be replaced by a policy of cooperation for a new paradigm among all nations on this planet, if we don’t want to destroy each other.

Now, my husband’s name stands for the New Paradigm like no other name in present history, or the history of the past 96 years for sure! And therefore, anybody who wants to do something to maintain peace, I really appeal to you to act immediately: On the Schiller Institute’s website, you will find a petition appealing to Trump that he must exonerate Mr. LaRouche, which I not only want you to sign, but ask that you help us spread this message as far as possible. Give it to your friends, colleagues, put it on your social media, get more people to sign this petition for the exoneration.

And also contact us, to help, because we plan to escalate this campaign until Lyndon LaRouche’s name is cleared, because this is a precondition for more and more people being able to study his absolutely beautiful ideas, which is why he was attacked so massively—to stop that.

Please sign this petition immediately. Become a member of the Schiller Institute. Become active with us. It’s one of the most important moments in history.

Schlanger: And take responsibility for making sure that people see this webcast, every single week! So, Helga, thank you very much for joining us today, and I’ll see you next week.

Zepp-LaRouche: Next week;—till then.