Executive Intelligence Review, Volume 46, Number 17, May 3, 2019

- Cover

- Masthead

- EDITORIAL ZEPP-LAROUCHE WEBCAST The New Silk Road Is Reshaping the World

- PDF edition Table of Contents — Volume 46, Number 17, May 3, 2019

- I. President Trump: ‘It was a Coup!’

- ATTEMPTED COUP AGAINST THE USA Larry Johnson, Bill Binney on Russiagate Fakery and GCHQ

- II. Lyndon LaRouche’s Legacy

- LAROUCHE PAC CLASS Can a Single Individual Change History And Bring about a New Renaissance? by Helga Zepp-LaRouche (PART 1 OF 2)

- The Science and Technology Needed To Colonize Mars by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. (1986; PART 2 OF 2 PARTS)

- For the Exoneration of the Most Beautiful Soul in American History by Helga Zepp-LaRouche

- III. Who Could Oppose the New Silk Road?

- British Imperial Gangsters Attack U.S.-China Cooperation by Harley Schlanger

- FBI Escalates McCarthyite Attacks on Chinese Scholars, Scientists, Students by Mike Billington

History’s Biggest Dig

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.

EDITORIAL

ZEPP-LAROUCHE WEBCAST

The New Silk Road Is Reshaping the World

kremlin.ru

Front, from left to right: Vladimir Putin (President of Russia), Xi Jinping (President of China), and Abdel Fattah el-Sisi (President of Egypt), before a roundtable discussion at the Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation on April 27, 2019 in Beijing, China.

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

This is the edited transcript of the Schiller Institute’s April 28, 2019 New Paradigm interview with the founder of the Schiller Institutes, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, by Harley Schlanger. A video of the webcast is available.

Harley Schlanger: Hello, I’m Harley Schlanger with the Schiller Institute. Welcome to our webcast with our founder and Chairwoman Helga Zepp-LaRouche. It’s April 28, 2019.

This has been a week of very significant events. I want to start by calling our viewers’ attention to a new class series that was begun yesterday by Helga Zepp-LaRouche, taking up the question of how an individual can change history, which is an in-depth look at the life and work of Lyndon LaRouche. I encourage people to go watch that class, because everything we’re going to discuss in this webcast has been affected and shaped by the lifelong work of Lyndon LaRouche.

With that said, one of the important developments of the week was the Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation, held April 25-27 in Beijing. This was a very large event, extremely significant: Don’t be fooled by the lack of coverage, other than to demean it, generally in the Western press. It included many nations. Helga, what’s your assessment on how this event went, the Second Belt and Road Forum?

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: Oh, I think it was a great success. The Belt and Road Initiative is completely consolidated. This is a new dimension to the world economy, which exists even if the Western media pretend it doesn’t exist or attacks it for no good reason. Thirty-seven heads of state or government participated, 600 ministers from 150 countries; 5,000 participants, delegates, 100 heads of international organizations, and many, many side arrangements, bilateral summits, altogether $64 billion worth of new economic agreements of one kind or another. So I think this was quite a big, big success.

kremlin.ru

Hosts Xi Xinping and his wife Peng Liyuan greet Vladimir Putin before the gala reception at the Belt and Road Forum on April 26, 2019.

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

Xi Jinping, in his keynote speech, went into great detail through the great progress which has been made in the last two years, since the first Belt and Road Forum in May 2017, and then he listed a long, long list of corridors and projects, which I can’t even try to replicate here—about 20, 30 large, large corridors. And he named as the first one, which naturally made me very happy, the New Eurasian Land-Bridge. As people may know, this is something we have been campaigning for, for almost 30 years, since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

This is the next, very big phase in the New Silk Road becoming the World Land-Bridge. It is quite significant in the context of this Belt and Road Forum—to which the United States sent some diplomatic representation, but not a high-ranking government person—that there were several renewed offers by the Chinese Ambassador to the United States, Cui Tiankai—and the Global Times newspaper echoed that—inviting the United States to join, saying the U.S. should not sit by, that the U.S. economic, industrial potential is urgently needed for these kinds of global development projects. So China clearly has offered an outstretched hand; one can only hope there will be a rethinking on the side of the United States.

kremlin.ru

Roundtable discussion at the Belt and Road Forum on April 27, 2019.

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

Schlanger: I was very struck by the open appeal of Cui Tiankai, who said: Imagine, if the United States and China, the two most dynamic economies in the world, were to work together? It was an open appeal, and hopefully there are people in Washington who are thinking it through.

I was also struck by the participation from Europe, from Switzerland, from Greece, from Italy, from Serbia. I understand even Germany sent Economy Minister Peter Altmaier.. This is really beginning to blossom inside Europe, and obviously this is going to be a problem for the European Union bureaucrats who are trying to shut it down.

Zepp-LaRouche: Before I get into the European situation, I should just mention, that at the beginning of my presentation in this class you mentioned, I showed a beautiful video of my husband from 1997, where he talks about the need for the United States to engage in the Eurasian Land-Bridge, and he says the two most important countries are the United States and China—to work together. And when you look at that video, you could think it had been for the occasion of the Belt and Road Forum—that’s how absolutely current it is. So, please take a look at the incredible video of Mr. LaRouche from May 10, 1997 that I showed in my class yesterday.

Europeans Flock to Beijing

The European participation was very interesting. There were several heads of state or government, for example Tsipras from Greece: He emphasized in his speech that with the development of the port of Piraeus, Greece is now becoming the hub and the gateway for the trade from Asia through the Suez Canal into the Balkans, into Europe, and he said, Greece is not the border between the South and the North, but the bridge.

Even more enthusiastic was Prime Minister Conte from Italy, who also met with Xi Jinping and Premier Li Keqiang. Xi Jinping emphasized that he is very happy with the memorandum of understanding which was signed between Italy and China during his recent visit to Italy, and both emphasized that this can be a model for all of Europe. That is exactly the case.

The President of Switzerland Ueli Maurer also made a very strong statement, saying the New Silk Road initiative demonstrates what is now quite rare—long-term, strategic planning that is bringing incredible benefits to the world. A spokesman from his office responded to a criticism from the EU Commission, saying: First of all, Switzerland is not in the EU, and secondly, we are an independent, sovereign country and can make our own decisions. Conte also responded to such criticism, saying that because of the memorandum of understanding between Italy and China, Italy now has a much better head for these kinds of policies, than if they were only acting as part of the European Union.

Altmaier, the German Economics Minister, couldn’t help himself—he gave a speech emphasizing the usual kind of litany, transparency, rules, and so forth, completely oblivious to the New Silk Road spirit that was clearly present for most of the other participants. He completely failed to take note of the fact that President Xi Jinping had announced major, major measures for a continued opening-up, more access to the Chinese market, more protection of intellectual property, more imports, more macro-management coordination—a lot of things by which China is taking steps to respond to these demands.

But, this is slowly but steadily sinking in. Yesterday, there was quite an interesting article in the German economic daily Handelsblatt, which had been very critical and even hostile to the Belt and Road Initiative in the past. It had an article saying it’s completely wrong to demonize China, because the recent negotiations between China and Malaysia, and also with Sri Lanka, have shown there is complete flexibility, there is no such thing as a “debt trap,” and if countries which are partners with China in these projects want to renegotiate a treaty, that’s absolutely no problem, and it was successful in both cases.

And then it says at the end, that the IMF has noted that there are 17 countries in Africa that may not be able to pay their debts, but that China is engaged with only three of them, while the rest of them are all indebted to the Paris Club and such big banks as Crédit Suisse and so forth. So, totally debunking this lie about the so-called “debt trap.”

kremlin.ru

Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin visit an exhibit on the history of the Beijing Friendship Hotel.

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

I think overall, this is going in a very, very good direction. And also Putin praised the Belt and Road Forum to the highest heaven, saying it will have a bright future, and he emphasized the extreme importance of the Chinese-Russian cooperation, and that there was absolutely no contradiction between the Belt and Road Initiative and the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), that they were completely integrating.

So, I think this is really an important development, because this creates stability in the world economic situation, which is very important for the storms that for sure will come soon.

Is ‘Russiagate’ Being Turned Into ‘Chinagate’?

Schlanger: I think we should see if we can get a translation of that Handelsblatt article out in Washington, because the Washington think tanks—the same networks by the way, that pushed the Russiagate scandal against Trump, engaged in the coup against Trump—are now turning this into “Chinagate” by attacking China as having imperial ambitions, and so on.

Now, there were some very important developments on the Mueller report, the Russiagate coup overall. President Trump came very close to what you had called for, Helga, going after the British and demanding an apology for U.K. instigation in coup effort against him. What can you say about his tweet and the story as it is emerging, about turning the tables against the coup-plotters?

Zepp-LaRouche: Well, Trump gave an interview to Fox News, to Sean Hannity, and in that interview, he said, several times, that the whole thrust of the Russiagate, was a coup attempt, that it was an attempt to oust him from office, that something like that normally would only happen in a third world country, and that the worst thing about the Mueller report was that it did not mention one word about all of this.

He talked about releasing all the documents related to the Christopher Steele report, to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court, to the relevant persons in the FBI and the Department of Justice: So this is now hanging in the air. I just listened to an American commentator who said this will change absolutely nothing—I certainly must say he is totally wrong. The implications of this are really incredible.

The mainstream media have completely blocked out Trump’s interview! Here you have the situation where the American President says that there was an attempted “coup” involving the British government—and there is no discussion about that? This is an unbelievable reflection of the complete control of the mainstream media on both sides of the Atlantic. The only article I saw about this—maybe I missed some—was in Politico, a short, relatively objective story, but there was to my knowledge no coverage in Europe at all.

Now that is unbelievable, but I don’t think this will hold. On the LaRouche PAC website, there was a blockbuster show featuring Barbara Boyd, Larry Johnson and Bill Binney, discussing the Mueller report and making it absolutely clear that the Mueller report provides absolutely no proof of Russia meddling in the election or anything else; that these are just assertions. And that, on the other side, the role of the GCHQ and British intelligence is what is really the most important aspect of any collusion. [That discussion appears in this issue of EIR.]

If Trump goes ahead and releases these documents, and I think this will happen, because also in the Congress there are motions in this direction, then the role of the British will become known. And this will not just have ramifications inside the United States, but just think what it will do in Russia—the Russians really have been targetted by the British, with many operations! Russiagate was the most important one, but there were all these false flag operations in Syria which were blamed on Russia; then you had the so-called “Skripal affair,” which was also blamed on Russia, which in all likelihood was the same kind of operation. So, in Russia, this will have a big effect.

kremlin.ru

President of the People’s Republic of China, Xi Jinping.

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

Remember, the Opium Wars are not forgotten in China. In India, the role of British imperialism and colonialism has been raised repeatedly in the recent period by the parliamentarian Shashi Tharoor, who has written a book about it. And then, in Africa, naturally, people have living memories of British colonialism.

So this will have a big, big effect, and I think it’s really important that the truth be straightened out and imperialism stops.

Schlanger: And Helga, I’d like you to go into another aspect of this, because there’s still confusion in many circles about what Trump is doing, what’s being done in his name: Clearly you have a gang of neo-cons who have taken advantage of Russiagate and Chinagate, to insert themselves and to push policies which go against what Trump is stating he’s for. For example, he’s against regime change, and yet, you have Pence, and Pompeo, and others, out front, insisting on regime change in Venezuela.

The Difference Between Trump and His Advisors

Given the potential to blow up this story around the British role and why they’re doing it, namely to prevent a U.S. cooperative relationship with Russia and China, how can this get to people around the world, so they can differentiate between what Trump says he wants to do, and what’s being done in his name?

Zepp-LaRouche: We have published quite a bit about that. Trump has repeatedly said he wants to have a good relationship with Russia; he wants to invite Xi Jinping through to the White House, hopefully to sign a trade agreement. And there are more and more people in the world right now who recognize there is a big different between Trump and many members of his cabinet. The most recent example was an interview which was given by the Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif to CBS News’ “Face the Nation,” where he answered the accusations of National Security Advisor John Bolton and such people, that Iran is the sponsor of terrorism in the region, and he said: Absolutely not. Trump should talk to his allies, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, they are sponsoring terrorist organizations.

kremlin.ru

Participants gather for a group photo before the gala reception.

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

And then he suggested that Trump should look at the ideology of ISIS and al-Qaeda. And he said, do they have Iranian ideology? Absolutely not. And then he said, there is a big difference between Trump and what he calls the “B Team,” meaning Bolton, Bibi Netanyahu, Saudi Crown Prince bin Salman, Abu Dhabi Crown Prince bin Zayed. So this B team basically is on a completely different course. And Zarif then warned that the U.S. is putting forces into place which could lead to an accident, and therefore the highest vigilance is required so that these confrontational things don’t happen in an accidental way.

So I think this distinction is very important. And one can only assume that the more this coup attempt becomes a factor in the public conscience, and Trump’s base demands that the investigators be investigated—I understand that Trump was at a big rally in Wisconsin yesterday; I do not yet know exactly what he said, but apparently he did mention the coup attempt. So the more the people know it, and the more people demand that these coup plotters be cleaned out, the more important it is for world peace.

Schlanger: And I think it’s also important that people like Bill Binney, Larry Johnson and others, who also spoke on our Fireside Chat on Thursday night, are continuing their offensive to expose the fraud in the Mueller report that said that Russia intervened and meddled in the U.S. election.

Danger of a New Financial Crisis

Now, Helga, there are a few other things we need to get to: You mentioned the danger looming of a financial crisis. There are new signs of this coming from emerging markets: What can you tell us about that?

Zepp-LaRouche: Well, in Argentina, there is a complete panic. The currency collapsed on Friday; they have now an annual inflation rate of 55%. But people on the ground told us that nobody knows what will happen, the situation is completely out of control. And the likelihood that Cristina Fernández de Kirchner may run again for President, and has a good chance of winning, is absolutely there, because the people really have had it with the present government.

There are other reports in the financial media that also Turkey and South Korea are in trouble, so we have to be very vigilant. And it just makes the point that we have to have the new credit system which Lyndon LaRouche has been demanding for years: We need the full package of his Four Laws—Glass-Steagall, the national bank in the tradition of Alexander Hamilton, a new credit system, a New Bretton Woods system, and the crash program for fusion energy and space cooperation to get a massive increase in the productivity of the economy.

This is urgently still on the table, and the best way to get this going, and get the kind of Four Powers agreement that Mr. LaRouche had also demanded for many years, is that the United States would respond positively to the offer of China to cooperate with the Belt and Road Initiative; because that would also then give the ability to invest in the kinds of development programs that will be the only way to stabilize many situations around the world.

One of the most urgent ones, the situation in Mexico and Central America, because there is now a new caravan has arrived in Mexico City of anywhere between 10,000 and 20,000 people; the Mexican government tried to not let them in the country, but here they are. This kind of phenomenon will continue until you have real economic development to solve the problem of why so many human beings are fleeing from hunger, epidemics, and war.

I think it makes all the more urgent the need to go into a new paradigm of international cooperation to solve these problems.

Cooperation in Space, Cooperation on Earth

Schlanger: Part of that idea of a new paradigm was very visible in the scientific report last week about the the black hole candidate at the heart of galaxy M87, the photographing of the black hole environment. I think it’s crucial for going back to this theme about the work of your husband, that one of his most important points was scientific cooperation on a global basis, is absolutely essential. He put this forward with the idea of a Strategic Defense of Earth.

You’ve been talking quite a bit about the importance of this photographing of the black hole environment: How do you see this fit in, in the context of this idea of international cooperation?

Zepp-LaRouche: Well, this is one of the most exciting developments, because, you know, the Event Horizon Telescope organization, they worked together with eight radio telescopes, which span practically the entire sphere of the Earth—in Chile, in Spain, in Arizona, in the Antarctic, and various other places, and it required integration of the data of these eight telescopes, with the help of the rotation of the Earth, to create an image, de facto created by a virtual telescope of the size of the sphere of the Earth. And that magnitude was necessary in order to be able to make this image.

You could not have done that with only one country working on it, but we needed practically the span of the planet Earth to do it, which shows that if we want to get more deeply into the secrets of the universe, then that is an absolute requirement to work together internationally in this way.

And what they discovered is a complete game-changer: because, for the first time, they could confirm what Einstein had predicted a long time ago, namely, that there would be such phenomena like black holes in the galaxies, where large masses contract so densely that basically they turn into black holes. And these black holes are cosmic objects where the gravity is so gigantic that it starts to very much bend space-time, and that basically everything disappears in these black holes, including light, including everything. So it’s like this is a place where the laws of the universe no longer function.

That has incredible implications: First of all, this black hole in the galaxy M87, which is relatively nearby,—and when I say “relatively,” it’s only 55 million light-years away—and given the fact that we have 2 trillion galaxies, this is all very mind-boggling. But this particular black hole has a mass of 6.5 billion times that of our Sun! Now we are taking about gigantic, almost unimaginable phenomena, and the effect of this was that all the astrophysicists and scientists were taken completely aback, because this is where all the laws of physics end, and completely new questions are opening up. One scientist from the Max Planck Institute in Bonn said: In the future we will talk about the time until the imaging of this black hole, and the time after. This is a complete watershed.

Now, I think this is a beautiful thing, not only because it again proves Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity to be confirmed; this happened the first time, a short time ago with gravitational waves, now it is the imaging of the existence of the black hole. And basically, scientists now assume that such a black hole is at the center of each galaxy—and as I said, 2 trillion galaxies.

So, this opens up a whole new realm of physics and it just shows you, all the assumptions of the ridiculous people like the Club of Rome, or uninformed people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her New Green Deal—all of these things are bunk! Obviously, our universe is anti-entropic, it is expanding, and human creativity is a material force in that universe.

So, all of these things I find completely exciting, and they’re a challenge to the imagination of all the young people to really become serious about science again, which is an art that has been lost very much in the recent period, at least in the West; fortunately not in other places. But I find this, very, very exciting, and we will talk more about it.

Exoneration of Lyndon LaRouche

Schlanger: Helga, I think this would bring a big smile to your husband’s face, as he was probably the biggest axiom-buster on the planet during his lifetime. And that brings us to the importance of people coming to recognize who he was, what he did, what his method was, and why it’s applicable today. And we should encourage people again, to go to the Schiller Institute website where you can find the exoneration petition : We’re in the middle of global mobilization for LaRouche’s exoneration, for many, many reasons, but including the importance of defeating the coup in the United States, permanently—not just exposing it, but defeating it. But also to open these beautiful ideas up, so they’re no longer ridiculed by a mainstream media which have no credibility. So, if you’d like to say something more on this, I think this would be the right time.

Zepp-LaRouche: Well, I’m deeply convinced the salvation of the United States, and by implication that of the world, and the exoneration of my husband, are identical questions. One reason, you mentioned that the networks which went after him in unbelievable campaigns—former Attorney General Ramsey Clark once called it the worst obstruction of justice and violation of law in the history of the United States, so that’s one very big reason: That these networks must be unmasked and justice must be restored.

But as an immediate result or effect of this, that if people don’t look at the ideas of my husband, which really represent the next level of human science and human knowledge about the laws of the universe, you know, I made in some other discussion recently, the comparison to the effect Plato had on the Italian Renaissance.

The Italian Renaissance was prepared by Dante, by Petrarca, by the beautiful sculptures and cathedrals, there was a fertile ground; but it was really when Nicholas of Cusa brought the delegation of the Greek Orthodox Church to the Council of Ferrara and then the Council of Florence, and these Greeks brought the entire life’s work of Plato with them: That was the spark which caused the Italian Renaissance to completely create a new paradigm. And fortunately, you had the Medicis—this was a wealthy banking family in Florence, which financed a crash program of translation of these works—and it was really a completely new period which started.

And I’m saying that that is the same in respect to the ideas of Lyndon LaRouche. I think there are many good things happening in the world right now, but I’m absolutely convinced that his important life’s work will be the spark which will trigger a new Renaissance, at least in the West, but I think also beyond. So that is why I really urge you to read his works, and sign the petition for his exoneration and help us to spread it!

Schlanger: OK, that’s a good assignment for everyone. Helga, thanks for joining us this week, and we’ll see you again next week.

Zepp-LaRouche: Till next week.

EIR Contents

www.larouchepub.com — Volume 46, Number 17, May 3, 2019

Cover This Week

Creative Commons

The starting point of the Central Route of the South–North Water Transfer Project in Henan, China, against a backdrop of the New Silk Road worldwide network.

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

HISTORY’S BIGGEST DIG

2 EDITORIAL: ZEPP-LAROUCHE WEBCAST

The New Silk Road Is Reshaping the World

I. PRESIDENT TRUMP: ‘IT WAS A COUP!’

10 ATTEMPTED COUP AGAINST THE USA

Russiagate Fakery and GCHQ

Larry Johnson and Bill Binney

II. LYNDON LAROUCHE’S LEGACY

20 LAROUCHE PAC CLASS

Can a Single Individual Change History

And Bring about a New Renaissance?

by Helga Zepp-LaRouche

31 The Science and Technology Needed to Colonize Mars, Part 2

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

1986

49 For the Exoneration of the Most Beautiful Soul in American History

by Helga Zepp-LaRouche

III. WHO COULD OPPOSE THE NEW SILK ROAD?

57 British Imperial Gangsters Attack U.S.-China Cooperation

by Harley Schlanger

60 FBI Escalates McCarthyite Attacks on Chinese Scholars, Scientists, Students

by Mike Billington

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

I. President Trump: ‘It was a Coup!’

ATTEMPTED COUP AGAINST THE USA

Larry Johnson, Bill Binney on Russiagate Fakery and GCHQ

Public Domain

Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), the signals intelligence organization for the government and the military of the United Kingdom, located in Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, United Kingdom.

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

LaRouche PAC’s April 25 Fireside Chat featured former NSA Technical Director William “Bill” Binney; Larry C. Johnson, formerly of the CIA and the State Department’s Counter-Terror Unit; and Barbara Boyd, the author of LaRouche PAC’s report, “Robert Mueller is an Amoral Assassin, He Will Do His Job If You Let Him.”

We present here edited excerpts from that discussion about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report, a report that tried to justify the $35 million spent investigating Russiagate when it was known from the beginning that there was never any conspiracy between the Trump Campaign and Russia. Bill Binney said he found no evidence in the Mueller report whatsoever demonstrating that Russians hacked the Democratic National Committee or John Podesta, a fraud which Mueller spends pages attempting to promote. Binney has previously done forensics on the WikiLeaks documents Mueller claims were the product of a hack by the Russians. He has demonstrated, as have others, that Guccifer 2.0, who Mueller claims is a Russian GRU [Russian military intelligence] persona, is an altogether fake persona and that the WikiLeaks documents are the product of a download onto a thumb drive or other storage device rather than a hack.

Johnson revealed that Britain’s GCHQ began a calculated surveillance operation covering everyone in the Trump Campaign in late 2015, which is how they targeted George Papadopoulos, the young Trump Campaign volunteer working in London, for a series of entrapment operations which created the pretext for the FBI’s counterintelligence operation, codenamed Cross-Fire Hurricane. As the result of this targeting, Papadopoulos was set up by Joseph Mifsud, a Maltese professor who is a British intelligence asset, not a Russian asset as fraudulently portrayed by Robert Mueller. Mifsud told Papadopoulos that the Russians had thousands of Hillary Clinton’s emails, creating the pretext or predicate for an unprecedented espionage against a major Presidential campaign by the FBI. On April 24, 2019, President Trump issued a tweet:

“Former CIA analyst Larry Johnson accuses United Kingdom Intelligence of helping Obama Administration spy on the 2016 Trump Presidential Campaign.” —

@OANN—WOW! It is now just a question of time before the truth comes out, and when it does, it will be a beauty!

Left: Gage Skidmore; right: Adam Hartman

Left: Former CIA Director John Brennan; right: Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.

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

Boyd focused initially on the reported fact that John Brennan initially demanded that the completely phony Christopher Steele report be included, verbatim, in the Obama Administration’s January 2017 “assessment” that Russia meddled in the election in support of Donald Trump. While Johnson said that this was really being pushed by James Clapper, the implication was very clear. Had that phony piece of intelligence been directly endorsed, the coup would have been completely and dangerously opened up directly just before the President’s inauguration.

William Binney: I have been looking over the Mueller report, which asserts a lot of things, but offers very little proof of anything. It asserts that the Russian GRU did the hacking. It says the GRU, operating as using Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks as representatives they’ve created to give false impressions to everybody, they say these are agents of the GRU. They also asserted that in certain periods, like 25 July, they apparently downloaded 70 GB of data. Then later on they say, between the 25th of May and the 1st of June, they allegedly downloaded thousands of emails. It’s like they’re alleging something is true, then later on they say, apparently they did this. And oh, by the way, they’re using these pseudo-representatives—Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks—but they never offer any proof. They assert that Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks are, in fact, representatives of the GRU, but they don’t ever prove that.

It talks about communications in the Moscow area, with the GRU contacting a server in the Moscow area, and allegedly passing some data there. Then, they talk about Julian Assange in 2015 sending an email to his associates in WikiLeaks, saying that it would be better if the GOP won the election. Then of course, they have different data talking about the DNC; the GRU went here and there.

But you never know; they don’t give you any specifics so you can sort out—what I was doing, was looking for something that would help me validate what they were saying; and I couldn’t find anything in it. In fact, I found these contradictions. And oh, by the way, on page 50 [of the report], they say “This Office did not examine servers or any relevant items belonging to the victims” of this tapping; but the FBI, the DHS [Department of Homeland Security], and the states did.

Well, you see, the problem is very simple, that communications in the Moscow area between the GRU and a server, and communications between Julian Assange and WikiLeaks associates either in Europe or in the U.K., are beyond what the FBI or DHS could see; but are well within the purview of NSA and GCHQ and the BND [German Federal Intelligence Service, foreign intelligence], and the other countries that are participating.

So, it means that they’re alleging there is other evidence from other services; they’re not saying who they are. And also, it doesn’t really give you any indication of how they’re making these connections; whether or not they’re using IP [Internet Protocol] numbers, or MAC [Media Access Control] numbers, or trace routes. There is no mention of trace routing, so that you can’t follow the flow.

It’s mixing up timeframes as well as sequences of events; they don’t do things in chronological order; they mix it up. But they keep repeating the same theme over and over, that the GRU did it; but there is no substance to any proof of it. That’s the problem I have; I couldn’t find anything that was relevant that could say, “I can validate this, and it’s right.” I couldn’t do that with anything that Mueller was asserting.

In fact, some of the footnotes referring back to the [Deputy Attorney General Rod] Rosenstein indictment, which used fabricated data from Guccifer 2.0, and what have you, to say “It’s the GRU.” Well, even back there, they gave no evidence to show that it was in fact the GRU. And, if you looked at it from the scope of what they’re talking about, in the communications, it really falls under the purview and charter of NSA.

So, what that means is, remember back with the ICA, the Intelligence Community Assessment, which was really only three agencies—NSA, CIA, and FBI—and only selected analysts from those agencies were participating. But in that, the CIA and FBI had high confidence the Russians did the hacking. But NSA only had moderate confidence; so that meant to me that the whole thing was a sham. There was no evidence backing up any of it; simply because NSA is the only agency that’s really capable of being able to trace-route all these programs all the way around the world. So, I just saw the same thing here with the Mueller report. It’s a puff piece; it has absolutely no substance to it. That’s my part.

Trump’s Right: The British Did It

Dennis Speed: There was a tweet from Donald Trump April 24, 2019, 08:19 a.m., which said: “Former CIA analyst Larry Johnson accuses United Kingdom intelligence of helping Obama administration spy on the 2016 Trump Presidential Campaign. WOW! It is now just a question of time before the truth comes out, and when it does, it will be a beauty.” It may help that our next speaker will be able to inform you a bit more about this.

Larry Johnson: President Trump’s tweet is referring to my interview with One America News’ Neil McKay. The information that I was passing on was what I had presented two years earlier on Russia Today [RT] television, back in March of 2017. It was subsequently picked up by Andrew Napolitano on Fox. He went on air; he never talked to me, and I could have helped him, because he misstated some things. But this was back when President Trump was saying that the FBI had spied on him, which they had. But they had not wiretapped him; the so-called wiretap was electronic intercepts of communications by the British Government Communications Headquarters [GCHQ], which is their version of NSA where Bill used to work.

I know this through a variety of means. One is just knowing how the intelligence process works, how collection works. But two, I had a heads-up from friends on the inside. In the summer of 2015, the British government, through its intelligence services, started a collection plan. A collection plan is something that’s very specific; it’s written down, and it is designed to guide the gathering of information. The initial part of this collection plan was to identify everybody on the Trump team and figure out if anybody on the Trump team—who they were talking to. Because they could intercept their emails, they could intercept their text messages, they could intercept their phone calls. They could start developing a network to see who they were talking to; especially outside of the United States.

That, in fact, is how they stumbled upon George Papadopoulos; because George was in the United Kingdom in the summer of 2015. He was texting, emailing, and apparently had at least one or two phone calls with Corey Lewandowski, expressing interest to get involved with the Campaign. So, that’s how his name surfaced and became part of the British government.

The way we know that there was British intelligence collected, is that a former Obama Department of Defense official by the name of Evelyn Farkas went on television, on the Joe [Scarborough] and Mika Brzezinski show—“Morning Joe” on MSNBC—and she stated that they had intelligence about Trump contacts with Russians, and others.

The fact that she said they had intelligence tells you—there are only two types of intelligence really that exist. There are human reports which the CIA generates, and then there are also human reports that the Defense Intelligence Agency [DIA] generates, but those are far less and they’re not really of the same sensitivity as what the CIA produces. Then there are the electronic intercepted messages that come out of principally the National Security Agency. That’s really the only two basic types of intel that come in.

The NSA material is always more interesting from the standpoint that you’re getting people saying what they actually said; you’re not having to necessarily interpret. You can at least say that there was this person talking to this person. The fact that the Obama administration was taking that intelligence and then unmasking; because when it’s passed from the British GCHQ to NSA and to CIA, when it has U.S. persons in it, their names are masked. They are referred to as “Person 1” and Person 2,” or “U.S. Citizen 1,” “U.S. Citizen 2.”

So therefore, these officials in the Obama administration such as Susan Rice and Samantha Powers and others at State Department could submit a query and say, “Who was this person, because we have a need to know.” And so when you get into the process of unmasking, what is going on is, the Brits were creating an intelligence predicate. They were creating a pretext, if you will, that on the U.S. side they could say, “Well, we have intelligence pointing to this”; so it justifies a counterintelligence investigation at a minimum. You’re able to say that it’s of concern because it’s produced; it’s written down in actual hard copy reports. They can see it; they can draw it up; it has a reference number that you refer to.

So, the Brits played a very important role not only in intercepting those messages, but then also in helping target and set up members of the Trump Campaign; to make it appear that they were working with, or on behalf of Russia.

The principal case in that is George Papadopoulos. Papadopoulos ultimately was approached by a fellow named Joseph Mifsud, who in the Mueller report is described as a Maltese diplomat with ties to Russia; which is a lie. Yes, he’s a Maltese diplomat; but he has far more extensive ties to the CIA and to the British MI6. He was, in fact, an asset, an agent of the British, and he was working on their behalf. He’s the one who goes to Papadopoulos, plants the seed of meeting with Putin, and getting information on Hillary Clinton and getting emails. So, he’s the one pushing all of that; Papadopoulos never raised it, never said, “Oh yeah, we should get that.” It was instead being planted on him in the hopes that he, like a stupid fish, would take the bait. He took enough of the bait in communicating that back to the Trump campaign that they created a track record and an intelligence trail on that. Therefore, when he denied it, or however he lied about it, it put him in the trick box.

But as has been proven, despite the fact that the Mueller report is disingenuous and dishonest, they did at least admit to the truth that nobody on the Trump team responded to the overtures that were being made by the Russians. And those overtures that were being ostensibly made by the Russians, were really plants for the British government.

Most Democrats and Many Republicans

Barbara Boyd: This is an amazing story, which, if we push it heartily is going to come out. And that’s why you see the present political problem in the United States of people going nuts in the Democratic Party; precisely because most of the leadership here bought into the coup. Most of the Democratic Party side of official Washington and many Republicans, bought into the coup.

Now, so to speak, the chickens are coming home to roost, as Larry and Bill just outlined. There was no Russian interference, and increasingly, the story that is being told is that it was a British and CIA and other intelligence community operation from inside the United States, in all probability coordinated from the White House by Barack Obama and coordinated directly by John Brennan.

Now, I want to go back to something which Bill was talking about, which is the January 2017 ICA or Intelligence Assessment, which is where it was officially put forth that Russia hacked the elections and that Russia was this menacing power which all of America, as [Sen.] John McCain put it, had to mobilize as if we were at war. If you remember, McCain’s bellicose language at that point was that Russia committed an act of war in our elections, which is what he said.

I want to highlight something which has just come out over the course of the weekend and was kind of not noticed all that much. About a month ago, Rand Paul tweeted that he had been told by very high-level sources that John Brennan wanted the Christopher Steele dirty dossier—this piece of nonsense and crap, a really nasty thing put together by, again, “former” MI6 agent Christopher Steele—not just to be leaked to BuzzFeed and published, which it was by an intelligence community operation; he wanted it to be formally, right there in the middle of that intelligence assessment.

Now think about that. Here’s the President coming into office, and in John Brennan’s mind and whatever the plan was, they’re about to put out there, as an official United States intelligence assessment, that the President of the United States has been compromised by Putin; that he’s a sexual pervert. The question you have to ask yourself is, “How close were we at that point? What was the actual plan that Brennan had in his head that they were trying to effect at that particular point? How close were we to tanks on the White House lawn, so to speak? If that was the actual logic and that was the actual thinking.”

The second thing which comes up, if this is true—and Bob Woodward was on Fox last Sunday looking like he’d seen a ghost, and saying yes, this is true. This is what Brennan wanted to do, and there was pushback from the other agencies who obviously didn’t want to do something so crazy. Yes, this must, must, must be investigated. You have to say, “Wow! This is really what’s at stake here. This is a very big deal.” We had, effectively, a planned coup d’état against an incoming President of the United States; something which continued.

So, with the Mueller report out and with the idea essentially that there was no collusion, we’re still not at a point of safety in the sense of saying, “OK, there can now be a Presidency,” because you’ve got half of the major players in Washington, D.C. about to be exposed as traitorous criminals.

Clean Out the British Network

That’s where the tension is coming from; that’s why this will not end unless we as citizens actually take a much larger role in insisting that not only should Trump be allowed to be President and these perpetrators punished, but a policy has to be put into place that this never happens again. Which means cleaning out the entire British network within the United States, and it means launching an economic renaissance in the United States; which is, after all, why Trump was elected. That’s what he was supposed to do.

What we need is a real, actual debate about moving this country forward on both sides of the aisle, and with independents and everybody else. That’s only going to happen if there is a concerted mobilization of the citizenry along the lines that LaRouche always thought you could have the citizens mobilize. That is, by actually giving them the programs and policies and discussions which elevated them to the level of the Latin farmer, so to speak, who made our Revolution.

In President Trump’s rally in Ohio a couple of weeks back, he was making fun of the people in Washington, D.C. and said, “They think they’re the elites. They’re not the elites, you are.” By that, he was trying to take the citizens out there and say you have to think at a different level if we’re going to win this particular thing.

Sometime back in 1988, when we were running a campaign up in New Hampshire, my husband Zeke Boyd got approached by Joe Biden. Joe Biden said to him, “I know Lyndon LaRouche; I know all about him. The problem with LaRouche is that he thinks the American people are smarter than they are.”

Johnson: It actually was not Brennan who was the coordinator on this; it was Jim Clapper. I got that solid from a source that was in a position to know. Obama was knowledgeable about this, but they were also, in classic intelligence methods, insulating him and trying to give him some plausible deniability. So the principals besides Clapper were Susan Rice and Loretta Lynch.

Revive the Committees of Correspondence

Speed: Let me briefly outline our effort to revive Committees of Correspondence across the United States. Ben Franklin initiated this policy in a formal way in 1764 when he was opposing the British implementation of the Currency Acts. He had been fighting them on this matter. Without getting into the details, Massachusetts had been a sovereign republic which printed its own currency. The British opposed this, because they were about to impose draconian measures on the colonies throughout in the aftermath of what was called the French and Indian War here, and the Seven Years War otherwise. So, this was between 1757 and 1763.

Franklin’s response was to create all across the colonies, together with various people, Committees of Correspondence. These groups were responsible for creating a sense of a nation, prior to the existence of the nation. And they did that; they were most notable in places like Massachusetts where it’s true that the very colorful Sam Adams did certain things in a colorful way, which then caused those Committees to play a particular role in instigating the American Revolution’s beginning.

We already have a revolutionary government—given to us with the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. The problem we have is that there are people who are trying to overthrow that form of government. And that process has already been de facto underway by means of what people have unfortunately called the “surveillance state.” It’s not a surveillance state; it’s imperial-based intelligence agencies going back to the time of the Five Eyes network created after the death of FDR. President Franklin Roosevelt and others knew how to handle foreign imperial powers. But in the aftermath of Roosevelt’s death, the practice of Americans weighing in on, deliberating on, developing, devising, and making policy was eroded.

Only two Americans have successfully done that outside of the mainstream; one was Martin Luther King with the way the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts were created. The other was Lyndon LaRouche in the creation of the policy called the SDI [Strategic Defense Initiative], which Ronald Reagan adopted against the judgment of most of his advisors in March of 1983.

President Trump is however an outsider. Unless you get a tweet from the President, you don’t know much about his policy and actions. It doesn’t mean there’s no one else in the administration dedicated to doing the right thing by the American people. But with so many agencies refusing to tell the real truth, the Committees of Correspondence have to be reborn in this country.

Question: Now that they failed in their coup that they’re running, some action has got to be taken. With this massive surveillance, something has to be done.

Johnson: These hostile actions didn’t just start with the actions against Trump. If you recall, it actually goes back to the program that was put in place after 9/11 to allow the interception by NSA of all texts, emails, conversations of American citizens as well. The Obama administration did this before; they did it against Americans. James Rosen of Fox News, for example, was spied upon. So, I think what we’ve seen with Donald Trump is merely an extension of what had already been done before. It was done on a much larger scale. Perhaps the one silver lining is that now even the NSA is coming out saying, “We think we can get rid of that program; we don’t think we need to continue doing that.”

Binney: But you’ve got to be careful. That’s not the content program, that’s the metadata program. So, they’re talking about getting rid of the metadata, but in the upstream program, they’re still collecting all the content. That’s where they have the taps on the wire. So, they’re not getting rid of anything here. Don’t believe any of it.

Boyd: Someone called in asking, “How does it happen? How does the truth come out?” It happens there are a lot of people doing a lot of work, like Larry and Bill and other people. And the situation itself was unsustainable. Think about the Mueller report. He knew a long time ago that there really was no case, in terms of collusion. The whole thing was dragged out to essentially see whether they could get Trump to flip out and cross the line, in terms of obstruction of justice. That, in turn, creates—people watch this stuff; some people understand it, who are kind of inside the process. The Congressional committees on the House side at the very least, did a heck of a lot of work and unearthed a whole lot of leads. People in the intelligence community, which Larry obviously has access to, have been sitting there watching this thing unfold.

Gradually you reach a point where you realize that they’re holding no cards. They don’t have any cards. They’ve done all this stuff; they’ve exposed themselves, but they’re not holding a lot of cards. Now it becomes simply an exercise of pure power as to what’s actually happening, and to the extent that we seize this particular moment and really act upon it and give Trump the idea that he can actually investigate the investigators—which everybody’s talking about doing; then we may get justice out of this situation, which is kind of a remarkable and very optimistic turning point.

How It All Got Started

Johnson: When Trump declared [for President], the Brits were concerned about Trump because of his comments particularly on Syria and on NATO. They saw those as some specific threats. Plus, the Clintons were leveraging through their Clinton Foundation ties they had in Britain, you get assistance as well. But Clapper and Brennan I know didn’t believe that Trump was going to get elected. But they were more than happy to try and help get information that would dirty him up.

It is in the March 2016 timeframe when it became apparent that Trump was the frontrunner and that he might very well take the nomination. That’s when you saw this sudden intensification of efforts against Trump. That’s where the George Papadopoulos case gets involved; that’s where Perkins Coie, LLP goes out and hires Fusion GPS and then they commission Christopher Steele to start putting together the dossier, even though I think that was in the works prior to this. It’s all being designed to start developing this Russian narrative. There was an email from Brent Padowski to John Podesta in December of 2015, in which Padowski told Podesta that we need to use Trump’s—he called it a “romance” with Putin against him. So, that was definitely part of the campaign strategy, starting in December of 2015; but it escalated in March of 2016. It continued through the summer of 2016.

But even then, I know for a fact from a friend who was present at one of the meetings, that Clapper and Brennan said, “Ah, there’s no way Trump’s going to win.” Actually, the FBI said, we wouldn’t be too certain about that. When Trump won, it was like an earthquake had happened, they were so shocked. Then they were frantic like passengers drowning on the Titanic, thrashing in the water trying to figure out some way to turn this about. They were even talking about court challenges to try to get this into court to have the election overturned. There was a lot of crazy thinking, and again, I come back to the fact that Brennan’s really not that smart of a person. He likes to think he’s a really smart person, but he’s a bit of a dummy. Clapper is smarter, but much more devious; and also very clever trying to keep himself out of harm’s way. But this was a process that evolved; and once Trump won, it kicked into a different gear.

Johnson: I don’t think it’s so much that they needed the foreign intelligence element, but from a campaign standpoint, if you’re looking to develop any information—I mean, as a personal confession, I was working with the Hillary Clinton campaign in the summer of 2007, working unofficially; I was friends with Sid Blumenthal. And we tried to go into Indonesia, to get the adoption records of Barack Obama, because he was adopted as a child by Lolo Soetoro. What we discovered, because I had a friend who was a former member of the FBI’s Hostage Rescue Team who was on the ground working in Indonesia at the time, so he went in and tried to get the records, and he came back, he said, “They’ve been cleaned out.” So, there had been pro-active measures take already on the part of the Obama campaign to clean up any kind of foreign records that might have been compromising, or would have made it plain that he was a citizen of Indonesia for a time by virtue of adoption.

So, when these operations start, it starts with a small group of people, but they are well placed and they have some seniority, and they start laying out, “these are what we want to do.” And it’s a cycle. In the initial phase was, let’s make sure we identify everybody’s who’s on the Trump team, from Hope Hicks, Corey Lewandowski, even down to lower level, and then you start monitoring those communications. And as you monitor the communications, you can start creating a data base that shows who’s talking to whom, and you can see if there are any connections to foreign actors that you want to focus on.

The Decision on a Russian Angle

So it was very much of a process, and in that, once they hit upon, I don’t know at what point they made the decision to say, let’s go on the Russian angle. What we do know for a fact, is that the FBI, with respect to the Trump Tower project, was using a fellow named Felix Sater. Felix Sater went to work in Donald Trump’s tower in 2003; he’s been described as a Russian mobster. He was born in Russia, came to the United States at the age of 6; he was boyhood friends with Michael Cohen. He got jammed up in 1998 with a stock fraud. He, as part of this plea agreement, he agreed to become a cooperating informant. The person who signed his plea agreement was Andrew Weissmann, who was really one of the lead investigators on the Mueller Special Counsel’s team. That was in 1998.

So, you jump ahead to the fall of 2015, and when you read the Mueller report, they don’t say a thing about the fact that Felix Sater was an FBI informant. Yet, all of the overtures, all of the suggestions, all of the negotiations to deal with the Russians, to go see Putin, to travel to Moscow, all of that came from Felix Sater.

I don’t believe in coincidence. I don’t believe that Sater was doing that on his own. He was being directed by the FBI to see if they could develop a pretext, or at least develop actual evidence, that Trump was in fact willing to respond and work with the Russians and work with Putin, and Sater was the one.

But understand this: Sater was not the only FBI informant that was danced into the Trump team. In the spring of 2016, a guy named Michael Caputo and Roger Stone were introduced to somebody named Henry Greenberg, who is also, for 17 years, an FBI informant. So when we’re seeing FBI informants who are working undercover on behalf of the FBI to try to help make cases, being run at the Trump team, this lets you know that this was not some passive effort. This was an active effort to try to entrap Donald Trump and his team.

Christopher Steele and ‘Operation Charlemagne’

Boyd: I would just add one thing to reinforce the British side of this, which is: A lot of this actually stems from the 2014 coup in Ukraine and the circles of [former MI6 head] Sir Richard Dearlove in London, and the fact that you have to look at both the Trump election and I believe Brexit going on at the same time. Just prior to Christopher Steele going to work, in the spring 2016 with Perkins Coie, working on this crazy dossier, he was an informant, apparently, with the FBI, and with the State Department, working on Ukraine and working on Paul Manafort, well before the 2016 election.

So there was the strategic issue of what are the Brits trying to do with Putin during this entire time period, and it very much appears to a lot of us that strategically what, they were trying to do, and what they have been advocating, is an actual regime-change operation within Russia itself. And the report which Christopher Steele concluded, right before he did the dirty dossier, so to speak, was something called “Operation Charlemagne,” which dealt with what he said was Russian interference occurring throughout every single country in NATO and also occurring in Brexit. And it’s of the same quality, I believe, that later surfaces as the “dirty dossier” on Donald Trump.

Domusrulez

Sir Richard Dearlove, head of MI6, the British Secret Intelligence Service, 1996-2004.

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

Johnson: One thing to understand about Christopher Steele: There’s an agreement amongst the Five Eyes—New Zealand, Australia, Canada, the United States, and U.K.—to not sign up as covert or clandestine operatives, each other’s spies. So the fact that the FBI had actually put Christopher Steele on the payroll prior to this, as Barbara correctly noted, he had been a paid informant for a while, and then, when this was exposed, what should have happened from the U.K. standpoint would have been outrage that the United States would have done this. Instead, what you had, was Richard Dearlove coming to the defense of Christopher Steele. That told me everything I needed to know as far as, that Steele was operating with the full blessing of his former MI6 bosses, that they saw this as another way to try to leverage their way into the U.S. both law enforcement and intelligence community.

Shine a Light on the Secret Government

Question: How is it possible that there are people who can hijack our government and our press, and have the population believe one thing that isn’t true? And why does it become so hard to convince people that they’d been lied to? Who should be held accountable? Are there safeguards, and were they bypassed? Who holds the government accountable?

Binney: The problem is that this was all initiated in secret. It was all done with secret courts, and secret memos that even members of Congress couldn’t see, and so on. Some of them have come out, like the [former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John] Yoo memos from the OLC [Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice], giving them authorization under the War Powers Act—there was no war declared, so they couldn’t even do that, but they still did, in secret, not letting anybody know that that was the foundation of it.

And so, when you have a secret government, a cabal that is the government behind the government, it’s kind of hard to weed it out, especially when you get so many people involved. It’s like the Intelligence Committees are involved, they know a lot of this, but aren’t saying it. The FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] Court knows, but they’re not coming out in the open. A lot of members of Congress know about this, too, and they’re not coming out in the open. So it’s really a matter of getting people to stand up, and get a backbone, and start living up to, and performing their oath of office to protect and defend the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens.

Johnson: I would simply add that this is not new. Recall the Pentagon Papers of Daniel Ellsberg. Everyone was lying about that. The mess that went on during the Iran-Contra experience, there was lying. We were lied to about what was going on with respect to weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So I mean, this is just sort of more of the same.

This is the first time, I guess, I’ve seen in my lifetime, where it’s been turned in full force on the domestic political process, where we’ve actually, if you will, weaponized the FBI, law enforcement and the intelligence community, against an opposition political party.

I would also add, just go back and look at all the authorities that were granted to the President in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, and in particular, even something like what’s called the AUMF, Authorization for the Use of Military Force, that is still the existing authority for allowing U.S. military forces to operate around the world, and for intelligence operations to be taken, when you can use the pretext of terrorism, collecting under that rubric, in order to gather information. So, what Bill said, and that as well.

Speed: I’m going to read a question here, from Mike from California. “What is the best option we have to uproot this evil in D.C. which is now threatening both world peace and our republic?”

Johnson: I think it’s just sunlight: I didn’t have high hopes for Bill Barr. When I was at the [Department of] State’s Counter-Terrorism Office, we worked closely with Bill at the time, on the Pan Am [Flight] 103 bombing and the prosecution of those responsible for that. He’s a serious person, he’s not an ideologue. He very much believes in the rule of law and in playing fair.

There are processes in our republic that if they are pursued and if they are followed, will ultimately bring these wrongdoers to justice. And they need to be brought, and they need to be charged. But there are so many moneyed interests involved with this, that they’ve been fighting desperately to destroy Trump, and in the process destroy our republic, without any regard for what it means to our freedoms and our liberties.

Binney: Sunlight is the thing they’re so afraid of. That’s why they’re scrambling here. They’re starting to be exposed, and that’s sunlight to them, and they just don’t like to see that! You know? It makes it too clear what they are and what they’re doing.

II. Lyndon LaRouche’s Legacy

LAROUCHE PAC CLASS

Can a Single Individual Change History And Bring about a New Renaissance?

by Helga Zepp-LaRouche

PART 1 OF 2

April 27—The purpose of this class series, among other things, is to contribute to the fight for the exoneration of my late husband. I’m deeply convinced that the future of the United States, and by implication, that of the world, and the exoneration of Lyn, are absolutely closely intertwined. The reason is very simple: That first of all, the apparatus which has been responsible for the prosecution of my husband—actually since, probably the 1950s, but really in earnest since the 1980s—is the same apparatus which is behind the coup attempt against President Trump, and it is the same apparatus which is for the confrontation against Russia and China, and contradicting the intentions of President Trump almost on every single point. And if this apparatus is not stopped, the danger of these confrontations leading to a war with Russia and China is actually very high.

Interrelated with that is naturally the question that only if the name of my husband is completely freed of the effects of this prosecution—years, actually decades of slanders against him—only then will the American people have unprejudiced access to the entire body of his ideas. And I can tell you that what my husband has produced in terms of concepts, in terms of natural science, Classical art, universal history, is so precious, that I think every living American, and for that matter, many people around the world, should absolutely have access to it, because it is the next level of knowledge of what people have to know.

I have said so, and I’m absolutely stating it again, that I believe that my husband was the most creative person living in his time. Now, that’s a big order, but I absolutely think that if people delve into his works, they will come to the same conclusion. Obviously, it is not so easy to describe, or get across in a short hour or two hours, the scope of what one individual has done, and how much Lyndon LaRouche has intervened in history to actually create the conditions which we have today.

To begin, I thought I would pick up on three strategic points, which are sort of an entryway to understand why his life and his work are so significant: I will touch only upon the one point where his influence is very active. I will not delve into it, because it has been elaborated elsewhere extensively, and that is that President Trump just two days ago stated an incredible fact: He said that behind the whole Mueller investigation was actually an attempted coup, an attempt to overthrow his government, and that this resembles what generally is only done to third world countries. But, where was the international outcry in response to this fact? Where was it picked up by the mainstream media? Or, where was there an outcry by politicians of the allies, in the West, in Western Europe, or elsewhere in the world? No. It did not happen, and that should tell you something about the state of affairs.

The reason why this is relevant, is that, as I said, the apparatus blocking the news of what Trump said, is actually the same apparatus that was behind the prosecution of my husband.

Now, this is not the end of the story, because President Trump stated he will release all the relevant documents relating to Christopher Steele, to the FISA Court, to the FBI and DOJ officials who were involved; and he also said this will become the biggest scandal in American history. What will come out, we already have stated it many times: It will turn out, which we have proven through much documentation already, but it will come out in a big way, is, that there was collusion, not with Russia, but with the British intelligence apparatus and the British government.

GCHQ/Crown Copyright

Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), United Kingdom.

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

Just imagine that we are maybe only weeks, maybe months away from the full truth coming out about the role of the British involved in this coup attempt, and just think what kind of changes will occur as a result. Because this is not an internal American affair. The role of the British Empire is very well known in China, not least because of the Opium Wars. It is very well known in India, because of the atrocities British imperialism committed against that country, and many other so-called “developing countries” around the world. And naturally, in Russia, which had not only the so-called Russiagate, but also the many false-flag operations and so forth.

Moon-Mars Program, Belt and Road

The second point, which I will discuss a little bit later, is that my husband defined many decades ago, the kind of ambitious Moon-Mars program which was recently announced and restated by President Trump to be the official policy of the United States. I will talk about it in a little while.

The third point, which is very active in terms of his influence in the present and concerning the future, is naturally what is just now happening in Beijing. There was in the last two days, the Second Belt and Road Forum—the big international conference around the Belt and Road Initiative of President Xi Jinping.

LPAC-TV

Helga Zepp-LaRouche, delivering a keynote address to the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road Forum in Zhuhai, Guangdong, China on November 29, 2017.

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

Two years ago, I had the privilege to attend the first such Forum, and this time, it was, in terms of numbers of people being there, even bigger. There were 37 heads of state and government, 600 ministers, 100 heads of international organizations, 5,000 participants. What they were commemorating and celebrating is six years of the existence of the New Silk Road, the largest infrastructure project in history, ever. In the few years it has existed, it has already transformed the outlook of all the developing countries in Africa, in Latin America, in Asia, and it is, indeed, a reflection of the last 60 years of the work of my husband.

Please, the first clip.

Lyndon LaRouche speaking in Washington, D.C. on May 10, 1997:

There are only two nations which are respectable left on this planet. That is, nations of respectable power. That is the United States, particularly the United States, not as represented by the Congress, but by the President. It is the identity of the United States, which is a political power, not some concatenation of its parts. The United States is represented today only by its President, as a political institution. The Congress does not represent the United States; they’re not quite sure who they do represent, these days, since they haven’t visited their voters recently, eh? The President is institutionally, the embodiment of the United States, in international relations. The State Department can’t do that; the Justice Department can’t do it; no other department can do it: only the President of the United States, under our Constitution, can represent the United States as an entity. Its entire personality. Its true interest. Its whole people.

Now, there’s only one other power on this planet, which can be as insolent as that, toward other powers, and that’s the People’s Republic of China. Now, China is engaged, presently, in a great infrastructure-building project, in which my wife and others have had an ongoing engagement over some years. There’s a great reform in China, which is a troubled reform. They’re trying to solve a problem; that doesn’t mean there is no problem. But they’re trying to solve it. Therefore, if the United States, the President of the United States, and China, participate in fostering that project, sometimes called the “Silk Road” Project, sometimes the “Land-Bridge” Project—if that project of developing development corridors, across Eurasia, into Africa, into North America, is extended, that project is enough work, to put this whole planet, into an economic revival. And, I’ll get into just a bit of that, to make it more sensuously concrete to you.

The World Land-Bridge Network

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

Now, China has had cooperation with the government of Iran for some time. Iran has actually been completing a number of rail links, which are an extension of China’s Land-Bridge program, or Silk Road project. More recently, we’ve had on the side of India, from Indian leadership which has met with the representatives of China, to engage in an additional route, among the land routes for the Land-Bridge program. One goes into Kunming in China. I was in that area, was in Myitkina, [Burma] during part of World War II, and out of Myitkyina, we had planes flying into Kunming, “Over the Hump,” as they used to say in those days. I’m quite familiar with that area. But if you have water connections, canal connections, and rail connections, from Kunming, through Myitkina, that area, across Bangladesh into India, through Pakistan, into Iran, up to the area just above Tehran, south of the Caspian, you have linked to the Middle East; you have linked to Central Asia; you have linked to Turkey; you have linked to Europe.

Then you have a Northern Route, which is pretty much the route of the Trans-Siberian Railroad, which was built under American influence and American advice, by Russia. You have a middle route, which is being developed in Central Asia, with China and Iran. India is working on a plan, which involves only a few hundreds of kilometers of rail to be added, though a lot of other improvements along the right-of-way, which would link the area north of Tehran, through Pakistan, India, through Bangladesh, through Myanmar, into Kunming, into Thailand, into Vietnam, down through Malaysia and Singapore, across the straits by a great bridge, into Indonesia. There’s a plan also for the development of a rail link, through what was Northern Siberia, across the Bering Strait, into Alaska, and down into the United States. There’s a Middle East link—several links, from Europe as well as from China—but from China, a Middle East link, into Egypt, into all of Africa.

So that, what we have here, is a set of projects, which are not just transportation projects, like the Transcontinental Railroad in the United States, which was the precedent for this idea, back in the late 1860s and 1870s. But you have development corridors, where you develop on an area of 50 to 70 kilometers either side of your rail link, your pipeline, so forth—you develop this area with industry, with mining, with all these kinds of things, which is the way you pay for a transportation link. Because of all the rich economic activity: every few kilometers of distance along this link, there’s something going on, some economic activity. People working; people building things; people doing things. To transform this planet, in great projects of infrastructure-building, which will give you the great industries, the new industries, the new agriculture, and other things we desperately need. There is no need for anybody on this planet, who is able to work, to be out of work! It’s that simple. And that project is the means.

If the nations which agree with China, which now includes Russia, Iran, India, other nations—if they engage in a commitment to that project, which they’re building every day; if the United States, that is, the President of the United States, Bill Clinton, continues to support that effort, as he’s been doing, at least politically, then what do you have? You have the United States and China, and a bunch of other countries, ganged up together. Against the greatest power on the planet, which is the British Empire, called the British Commonwealth. That’s the enemy.

And what if on one bright day, say, a Sunday morning, after a weekend meeting, the President of the United States, the President of China, and a few other people, say, “We have determined this weekend, based on our advisors and the facts, that the international financial and monetary system is hopelessly bankrupt. And we, in our responsibility as heads of state, must put these bankrupt institutions into bankruptcy reorganization, in the public interest. And it is in our interest, to cooperate as nations in doing this, to avoid creating chaos on this planet.” The result then, is that such an announcement, on a bright Sunday morning, will certainly spin the talking heads on Washington TV. But, otherwise, it means that the entire system, as of that moment, has been put through the guillotine, and the head is rolling down the street. (Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan’s head, perhaps.) That means, we have, at that point, the impetus for building, immediately, a new financial and monetary system.

Now, in putting a corporation which is bankrupt, into viable form, what do you do? You’ve got to find the business that it’s going to do, which is the basis for creating the new credit, to get that firm going again. The Land-Bridge program, with its implications on a global scale, is the great project, which spins off, directly and indirectly, enough business, so to speak, for every part of this world, to get this world back on a sound basis again. [end video]

What One Individual Can Do

Zepp-LaRouche: This was a presentation Lyn gave in Washington, D.C. on May 10, 1997. So, I think that this is just one example of how Lyn conducted his altogether eight Presidential campaigns: the first one in 1976, for the U.S. Labor Party, and the subsequent ones as a pre-candidate in the Democratic primaries. They were all devoted to exactly what Lyn was talking about here: the global reconstruction of the world economy, and the return to the policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Bretton Woods—or better, New Bretton Woods, because a New Bretton Woods would not have the mistakes introduced by Truman and Churchill after the death of Roosevelt; and the idea of global transformation of especially the developing sector.

Now, how is it, that one individual was capable of effecting a change in the paradigm, away from the dominating policies of the British Empire, to what is now clearly emerging with the Belt and Road Initiative of China for a completely new, just world economic order? In order to elaborate that, we have to go back to Lyn’s own description of what enabled him to have such a vastly different world outlook than almost all of his contemporaries.

LaRouche’s Three Discoveries

Lyn always said that this all goes down to three basic, interconnected discoveries he made coming, basically, out of his World War II experience in India, especially in the period of 1948-52. It started, clearly, with an image of man: Lyn has described many times how there can be absolutely no doubt from prehistoric findings, from various historical artifacts, that there is a fundamental difference between human beings, as far back as 100,000 years ago, and all animals. While animals were only capable of learning certain things, in a sort of repetitive manner—and you know, some animals which have more contact with human beings can get very good at that—there is an absolute difference, because mankind has been able to continuously make discoveries about verifiable principles of the physical universe.

USDA/Lance Cheung

A Computer Numerical Control machine operator makes a process inspection after a casting is machined.

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

And these discoveries increase, in the long term, resulting in a continuing increase in man’s power in and over nature, in terms of per-capita and square kilometer of the surface of the Earth. In that sense, these discoveries of principles which are provable in experiments around the globe—that’s why they’re called universal—have defined humanity as the only species which willfully upgrades its relationship to the biosphere and to the universe at large.

The paradox which Lyn pointed to very early on, is that, while it is very clear that if you take long-term arcs of history, like hundreds of generations, there is an almost certain and unavoidable increase in the knowledge of the human species, and progress in terms of longevity, in terms of living standard. But this is not necessarily the case if you take only a few generations, because there you get what Lyn described as the cultural factors which determine if a society is able not only to discover new discoveries, but to even maintain the existing ones and apply those. These so-called cultural factors determine if society and mankind are to survive and flourish.

Lyndon LaRouche personally witnessed the brutality of the British Empire in India, which resulted in widespread communal rioting between Hindus and Muslims in which 4,000 were killed in Calcutta (now Kolkata) on August 16, 1946.

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

Now these scientific developments and discoveries reflect themselves in a scientific manner; namely in the demographic characteristics of culture. Lyn very early on was the only one who recognized in the 1960s that despite the upward vector in the economy of the United States and Western Europe at that time—he called it the priority construction period in the postwar period—that even such positive development was extremely endangered if you had the takeover of negative cultural influences, which he described at that time as the threat of the so-called counterculture. Lyn also was very critical of what has increasingly happened since the death of Roosevelt: that the Western elites—especially in the United States, but also clearly in Europe—had degenerated to a point where he called the leading layers ignorant, unbearably backward, and even savage.

National Archives

At conferences during World War II, U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt informed an apoplectic British Prime Minister Winston Churchill that after the war, the United States would end colonialism. Shown here is Roosevelt and Churchill at Casablanca, Morocco on January 22, 1943.

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

Now Lyn defined these three discoveries which were the basis of his entire work afterwards in the following way: He said it was these three discoveries which were the basis of all the controversies in all the decades following.

The first of Lyn’s discoveries was that the sequence of revolutionary discoveries of universal physical principles create an orderly increase in man’s influence over nature per capita and per square kilometer in terms of area of the surface of the Earth. If these discoveries are applied in the machine tool sector in the production process, they lead to an increase in the productivity of labor and industrial capacities. This again results in an increase of the living standard of the population and its longevity. That was his first crucial discovery.

Secondly, and absolutely related to that, was Lyn’s recognition that this is not just true for the realm of natural science, but it applies in the absolute same way to the realm of Classical art, poetry, music, painting, and that there was absolutely no division between Geisteswissenschaft and Naturwissenschaft, which division had been practically accepted everywhere.

Lyn’s third discovery was the recognition of the significance of Riemann’s habilitation dissertation of 1854; that this applied not only to the realm of natural science, but also to the realm of culture. And that both areas—and I think this was really an incredible thing to say—that both of these have an ontological character; which means that what is happening in terms of scientific progress created by human discovery and the creation of great art have an impact on the laws of the universe and the essence of the universe.

Now Lyn also described that the basis of his discoveries was that, as a very young person, he studied deeply Leibniz; and from a Leibnizian standpoint rejected everything coming from Kant and the neo-Aristotelian traditions. He reinforced this later on also in terms of the negative influence of Bertrand Russell. Also Lyn recognized on the basis of these developments that what was developed in terms of information theory by Norbert Wiener and the systems analysis of John von Neumann was absolutely unfit to describe real economic processes.

Lyn recognized that all the leading domains of knowledge at this time were already absolutely dominated by Aristotelian, empiricist, positivist, materialist, Cartesian doctrines which assume a total separation of the rational behavior people normally have in their professions, their work in physical science, and in the so-called beaux arts—the beautiful arts; these arts in modern times have not been so beautiful at all.

Potential Relative Population Density

It was very clear to Lyn at that point that the progress of scientific discoveries is absolutely measurable in terms of the notion he created and called “relative potential population density.” Population density is very clear; it is the number of people who can live on a unit of surface area of the planet. Relative population density refers to the improvements made by human activity, and potential relative population density refers to the potential if more new discoveries and technologies are applied. So, this is a measurement with which you can actually determine failed cultures, because not all cultures did apply this necessity for scientific progress. For example, the old Mesopotamian order, then the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, and the Aztecs—all cultures which, according to the need to apply scientific and technological progress, lost the moral ability to survive.

It is interesting that Lyn, in this context, is saying what Friedrich Schiller describes in the Aesthetical Letters—Schiller’s answer to the failed French Revolution, that Classical culture is required, and depraved cultures must be rejected, which Schiller described in the context of the French Revolution—this has an ontological character. This is quite incredible; but as I will come to in a second, it actually pertains to the laws of the universe, which is what human culture affects.

Before Lyn had these breakthroughs, he participated in the Second World War in Burma and India. He very vividly told us many times about his experience of the incredible massacre at the time of the Calcutta riots and the brutality of the British, which he witnessed first-hand. Lyn came back from that experience not only with a stern impression of the nature of the British Empire, but also the absolute need to bring Western technologies after the war to foster the development of the developing sector.

Lyn said that he only later learned about the controversy between Franklin D. Roosevelt and Churchill. Churchill said that the British participated in the Second World War to maintain the British Empire; and Roosevelt insisted that the United States had not participated in the Second World War to do exactly that, but that he, Roosevelt, intended to overcome colonialism forever.

Lyn came back with exactly that impulse from this experience, and it for sure contributed to his basic three discoveries.

From the standpoint that scientific and technological progress is a universal need for all of mankind, he immediately recognized what went wrong with the paradigm shift beginning in the 1960s; the ’68 generation, the beat generation, the devastating long-term effect of the sex-rock-drug counterculture on the cognitive potentials of the population.

It also enabled him uniquely—like nobody else of his contemporaries—to recognize the absolutely devastating consequences that would follow when Richard Nixon decoupled the dollar from gold on August 15, 1971, and Nixon got rid of the fixed exchange rates and basically replaced them with a system of floating exchange rates. Nobody at that time recognized what that meant; the dismantling of the Bretton Woods system. But Lyn at that point very forcefully said, this will lead, if not corrected, either to a new world economic order or to a new fascism.

That was a strong prediction, but I can assure you that many of the older members of this organization became members and joined LaRouche because they could intellectually recognize that that was absolutely the case. We were at that time, some 40 years earlier, the so-called first youth movement of LaRouche, and we decided to join Lyn in trying to remedy exactly this situation.

Me personally, I had come back from a trip in 1971 which took me briefly to Africa and for longer to Asia. And Lyndon LaRouche—whose theories I met in 1972 in Berlin in the university presented by a professor—he was the only one to my knowledge, then and now, who had a comprehensive plan to develop the developing sector through infrastructure, through industry, through nuclear energy, through the development of agriculture. This was indeed why I joined this organization.

Science and Classical Art Are an Ontological Feature of the Universe

It is very important to know that Lyn’s recognition that the scientific and technological progress and cultural advancements through Classical art are an ontological feature of the evolution of the universe, led him to have a positive conception of where the transformation of the entire human race would go. And it involved especially also the industrialization of the developing sector.

As a methodology, it is extremely important to keep that in mind, that Lyn always had a very positive idea of where the world should go, and it was from that vantage point, from that sort of prescience, that he would recognize like nobody else negative trends which would endanger the continuous prospering of the human species. It was from that standpoint that Lyn and the increasing number of people who decided to join him, recognized, as the only ones, what was the devastating consequence of the silly concepts which were pushed by the Club of Rome in their so-called new report on the “Predicament of Mankind,” published in 1970.

Then the Club of Rome commissioned two MIT professors, Dennis Meadows and Jay Forrester, to actually work on a computer simulation of the so-called limited resources of the planet, basically on the basis of systems analysis and the computer simulation. They worked on different scenarios, including as components of this program, industrialization, population growth, malnutrition, limits of raw materials, destruction of the environment. Basically, they made a computer model and published it with the famous title, The Limits to Growth. Then, this book was translated with an enormous amount of propaganda and money into many languages, and it sold many dozens of millions of copies worldwide.

This was practically the beginning of a real escalation of the revitalization of the ecologist movement, which had already been pushed by the Nazis, by Hitler, in the form of eugenics. It was then reborn in the postwar period by the British conservation movement. But this was now a complete attack on the paradigm as it had developed in the reconstruction of the postwar period.

Lyn, a few months later, wrote a book called There Are No Limits to Growth, where he described in absolutely polemical terms why the Meadows/Forrester model was a complete fraud, because it left out the role of scientific and technological progress in the determination of what a raw material is.

This Club of Rome propaganda blast intersected a previous, conscious paradigm manipulation which had been initiated by the Frankfurt School, and led to the so-called ’68 movement in Western Europe and the United States.

Just briefly, the ’68 movement was largely influenced by Maoism, by the Cultural Revolution; there were many so-called communist groups pushing versions of it. It is important to understand the difference between what is going on in China today with the New Silk Road, and the decay of most of the Western countries. Because Deng Xiaoping completely changed the policies in China after the death of Mao, and introduced the famous Reform and Opening Up policy which went really back to the concepts of the American System.

NASA

China’s Deng Xiaoping (center front) and his wife Zhuo Lin getting a briefing by Director Christopher C. Kraft at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas on February 2, 1979.

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

In reality, what China is doing today is very much modeled on the American System of economy, on Alexander Hamilton, on Friedrich List. And because of the Deng Xiaoping reforms, China started on a 40-year economic development program, which was essentially without cyclical crises, leading to an upward economic development, lifting 800 million people out of poverty, and probably will conclude the elimination of poverty next year. So that no single person in China will suffer from extreme poverty. But the West, naturally, the United States and Europe, unfortunately did not only not correct the axioms of the Cultural Revolution, but they started the Long March through the institutions and accelerated this zero-growth ideology which was really redefined by this Club of Rome intervention.

LaRouche’s Answer to World Depopulation

Now, one version or one next phase of that was the World Population Conference of the United Nations in Bucharest in 1974, which I attended. I witnessed first-hand how that paradigm of zero-growth developed by the Club of Rome was not yet accepted at all; because there were many NGOs and many left groups who basically said this whole thesis of overpopulation in the developing countries of the Population Bomb as they called it, is really a Rockefeller baby. John D. Rockefeller III was present at that conference, and I intervened with a polemical paper, which basically had a big impact on this conference. This was a conscious effort to introduce completely new axioms into the discussion.

Lyn went to Iraq in 1975, participating, along with many Non-Aligned Movement leaders, in celebrations of the Ba’ath Party. He had long discussions with many of them, and as a consequence, coming back from it, he immediately wrote a plan for the development of the Middle East: new rain systems; new fresh water creation through nuclear energy desalination, and other modern technology. He called this the “Oasis Plan,” one of the first concrete development plans which Lyn produced, based on his scientific recognition.

He did another thing; he immediately said the IMF must be replaced through a new credit system—the International Development Bank (IDB). This was a revolutionary approach; the idea to create a new credit mechanism by which the so-called advanced countries would have a giant technology transfer to the developing countries. He talked about $200 billion a year of such development transfer. We took this proposal by Lyn, we discussed it with many leaders of the Non-Aligned Movement, with embassies, with contacts we had in the different countries.

Leaders of 85 nations convene for the Fifth Summit Conference of the Non-Aligned Movement, held in Colombo, Sri Lanka in 1976.

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

One year later, the Non-Aligned Movement, at their conference in Colombo, Sri Lanka, adopted a resolution which was very much influenced and with many sentences even identical with Lyn’s IDB conception. We were very happy, because at that time we said, “Oh, three-quarters of the human species just has adopted the need for a new world economic order.” But there was absolutely nothing being reported in the mainstream media. What happened instead was, you had a gigantic destabilization of all the leaders who had participated in this Non-Aligned Movement meeting in Colombo. You had a destabilization of Mrs. Gandhi in India, Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in Pakistan, Mrs. Bandaranaike of Sri Lanka, of General Velasco Alvarado of Peru. This did not lead to the indicated kinds of changes, never mind that the majority of mankind had just decided that they wanted this kind of development.

Lyn kept this fight up. In 1976, we had the first big seminar in Paris on the idea to have a comprehensive development plan for the entire African continent. The idea to have infrastructure, ports, roads, railroads, as a precondition for the industrialization of an integrated African continent. That seminar was supposed to be one week. I was there in Paris for the days before, and on behalf of the Iraqi ambassador, who had invited many ambassadors to attend, this was supposed to be a training course for this African development then, and the Middle East development then.

It did not happen because Henry Kissinger, on that same day, flew into Paris and told the Iraqi ambassador that he had to develop a diplomatic illness, disinvite Mr. LaRouche, and cancel the whole seminar. That is just one of the elements of what happened. Keep in mind that just two years earlier, Henry Kissinger—in his function as a National Security Advisor—had written the infamous NSSM-200 memorandum which is a blueprint for genocide. It has the imperial demand that all raw materials belong to the United States because that’s just the way it is; and that therefore population growth in some key developing countries which have large populations should be discouraged, because they would use up too many of these raw materials. So, this was obviously the mindset with which Kissinger intervened to sabotage this seminar.

EIRNS

Frederick Wills, Guyana’s Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of Justice, calls for an international development bank and a debt moratorium at the United Nations General Assembly, in New York City on September 8, 1976.

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

Meanwhile, the Foreign Minister of Guyana, Fred Wills, had introduced this conception of the IDB into the United Nations session. So, Lyn, in the same year—1976—ran his first Presidential campaign against the ideology of the Trilateral Commission. Already in 1973, the Council on Foreign Relations had started something which they called the 1980s Project, which was what they called the “controlled disintegration of the world economy.” It was basically 22 books, many of which were written by people who later became members of the Carter Administration, which was calling for the complete de-industrialization of all kinds of areas of the world.

It demanded that especially the repetition of a model like Japan in any other Third World country had to be prevented by all means. What was to be prevented was the combination of what they called socialism—because the Soviet Union at that time still existed—and mercantilism. In other words, those concepts which were the precursors of what Lyndon LaRouche later developed as physical economy, should absolutely not occur in the developing countries.

EIRNS/Stuart Lewis

Lyndon LaRouche and Ronald Reagan confer at a NRA candidates’ debate in Concord, New Hampshire during the 1980 Presidential Campaign.

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

LaRouche and Reagan

So, Lyn did his Presidential campaign in 1976 against these policies, and again then in the Democratic Party in 1980; where he led to the defeat of Bush, Sr. It was Lyn’s exposure of Bush’s relation to the Trilateral Commission which was a contributing factor why he lost this election. I think Bush never forgave Lyn for having done that. This was also the Presidential campaign in which Lyn developed direct knowledge of, and relationship with President Reagan.

This naturally then intersected the middle-range missiles crisis which started to develop in this period; namely that the SS-20 and the Pershing II missiles of NATO and the Warsaw Pact were only within a few minutes’ warning time, directed against each other. Which created the immediate danger of an accidental launch or a mistake. Lyn developed also in absolute recognition that the Soviet Union was developing a point-defense system up in space, based on new physical principles, around Moscow. The danger of a nuclear war would arise if one superpower would apply these new weapons systems, and the other one would be left with their nuclear weapons becoming obsolete.

This was the context in which Lyn developed the SDI; which was, as people remember, adopted by President Reagan on March 23, 1983. This conception by Lyn to have both superpowers develop together technologies based on new physical principles which would make nuclear weapons obsolete by developing different systems; a point-defense system, a system to bring down the missiles in their boost phase, and too, other systems installed in space, and that way, basically making the offensive more expensive than the defense, and in that way creating the condition of making these nuclear weapons obsolete.

This was very different than what the media made out of it in terms of Star Wars. This was a grand design developed by Lyn which was the idea to get rid of nuclear weapons, dissolve the military bloc, dissolve NATO and the Warsaw Pact, use these new technologies based on new physical principles for a science driver in the civilian economy; boost these economies, and then have basically a technology transfer of gigantic proportions, stop the character of the developing nations as being the basis for proxy wars of the superpowers, and create a completely new paradigm for the international cooperation of the nations on this planet.

This was a grand design. President Reagan announced it to be official American policy on the 23rd of March 1983. It was rejected at that time by the Soviet Union; which led Lyn to predict that the refusal of the Soviet government to go in this direction and instead stick to their old armament and intelligence and military apparatus, would lead in five years to the collapse of the Soviet Union. And as you know, that’s exactly what happened.

This concept, to get rid of military blocs, to find a cooperation among the big powers of the world, to uplift the developing sector from poverty and under development, lost the kernel of the SDI policy and was in essence exactly what the New Silk Road, Belt and Road Initiative of China is today. I think it’s very important that people really recognize the continuity of what Lyn has been trying to accomplish; only changing the tactical approach as the strategic situation was changing.

In this same period, Lyn would write 60-80 pages per day, ready for print with all the footnotes, without any need for editorial improvement. He at the same time had developed plans for Latin America, he responded to a demand by López Portillo, who was asking him to help him against the capital flight which was organized by the City of London and Wall Street. So, Lyn wrote a plan for Latin American integration which was called “Operation Juarez.”

Coordinación de Material Gráfico

President of Mexico José López Portilllo launched a national food-sufficiency policy and called for the construction of 20 nuclear plants in Mexico. He is shown here rallying support for his nationalization of the banks at the Zocalo on September 3, 1982.

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

It was implemented by López Portillo on the first of September in 1982; causing Wall Street to tremble for half an hour, because they thought the Latin American countries had gotten together to use the debt bomb to re-organize the conditions of their debt payment. This did not happen, because Argentina and Brazil did not come to the side of López Portillo, for which Argentina had to pay with the Malvinas War afterwards. But here it was a long-term plan for the Latin American integration; infrastructure, industrialization, which still is on the table today.

At the same time, we started to have intensive relations with Indira Gandhi, whom we visited twice. Lyn wrote a 50-year development plan for India, which was based on the idea that in 1979, India had an urban population of 50 million people, and a population of 350 million. The idea was to have a development of infrastructure, of universal education, which would transform in two generations the Indian subcontinent into a modern nation. Indira Gandhi had started to implement that, and it was continued to a certain degree by her son, Rajiv Gandhi.

I can only touch upon briefly the many things Lyn did. We created the Schiller Institute; it has become an international influential think tank and renaissance movement. Lyn worked on his space program; Lyn had his Presidential campaign in 1984. We travelled through 38 states, all on the same program; go back to the FDR economic policies, Glass-Steagall, economic reconstruction of the United States, reconstruction of the world economy. Then naturally, we had many events around the space program, the ideas of Krafft Ehricke, the development of the Moon and Mars, which Lyn developed in a half-hour TV program in his 1988 campaign with the movie “The Woman on Mars.” We travelled in many European countries; all together we travelled to more than 40 countries. We had conferences, seminars.

We developed a network of people around the world who absolutely agreed with Lyn’s idea for the need to have a new world economic order along the lines Lyn had proposed. At the same time, Lyn was absolutely creative in terms of a renaissance of Classical culture. He had a very successful international campaign to return to the scientific proper down-tuning in music; a campaign which was signed by hundreds of the world’s most renowned singers—Cappuccilli, Bergonzi, Renate Tebaldi, and many others. So, the idea to combine economic development with a Classical renaissance was absolutely there all the time.

To be continued.

1986

The Science and Technology

Needed To Colonize Mars

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

PART 2 OF 2 PARTS

NASA

International Space Station Commander, NASA Astronaut Peggy Whitson, looks back at Earth from the cupola control tower.

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

April 26, 2019—It will be evident to the reader that Lyndon LaRouche’s ideas expounded in this 1986 article have stood the test of time magnificently, and must light our way today. But certain circumstances would have changed Mr. LaRouche’s way of expressing them were he writing this during the Twenty-First Century. Writing in 1986 when the United States was in a form of confrontation with the then-Soviet Union, LaRouche spoke of the Mars colonization mission as a U.S. mission. But later, after the breakup of the Soviet Union, he wrote of it as a cooperative international mission in which Russia, China, India, Japan and other applicable nations would be invited to join as sovereign equals. In the first section of this second installment, some formulations relating to the confrontation with the Soviets have been removed from the original. This article was first published in the

November-December 1986 issue of

Fusion magazine.

The Military Analogy

The astronaut traveling for extended periods into deeper interplanetary space, experiences a stress akin to that of the soldier in combat. He is far removed from what his rearing as child and adolescent defined as acceptable circumstances, committed to a hostile and deadly strangeness. This sort of effect upon the astronaut is projected back upon the nation and Earth-bound civilization which that astronaut represents, just as the fate of the combat soldier has profound impact upon the population of his nation. Just as the nation participates in a war far from its shore, through its combatants, so the nation participates psychologically in the astronaut’s space exploration. It is not merely the astronaut who is working in space; we, as a society, are in space. We, as a society, experience the essential cultural impact more immediately confronting the astronaut traveling at a remote distance.

War is war, and space exploration is just that; however, the psychological experience varies among definable psychological types of soldiers, and, similarly, definable types of space explorers. The analogies between war and space exploration, and in the comparison of psychological types of combatants in warfare, shed important light on the proper moral philosophy for a space-exploring society. It sheds light directly on the penalties of a poor choice of philosophy, and also sheds light, implicitly, on the beauties of society’s participation in such exploration.

The killing of human beings is, by its nature, bestial, and therefore bestializing in tendency of effect upon he who kills or merely prepares to kill. In the worst sort of psychological type of combatant, “coming up ugly,” mobilizing the feral beast from the lowest, most infantile depths of one’s personality, predominates. In the opposite psychological type, the killing exists only as the indispensable act in service of a moral purpose; this is the combatant-type closer to the mind-set of the astronaut. The latter psychological type is a combatant far from home, distant from home physically and psychologically. Whether as soldier or as astronaut, the adversary is attacked impersonally; this type of soldier does not kill for “personal reasons,” but for reason of love of duty to the higher moral cause of his nation, the motive which has brought him to the theater of warfare. His motive is the essential, to which the indispensable is fully subordinated psychologically, philosophically.

EIRNS/Dennis Speed

“Americans lack those psychological potentials for space exploration which existed during the1960s and earlier.” Shown here is the giant five-thruster array of the Saturn V rocket on display at the NASA Kennedy Space Center in Orlando, Florida.

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

The contrast between the two psychological types of combatants is illustrated by the way in which General Douglas MacArthur combined his magnificent display of principles of mobile development during World War II and the war in Korea, and the consistency of this military excellence with his approach to the administration of defeated Japan. The same point is illustrated by contrasting General Patton’s application of mobile development to the relative incompetence of Field Marshal Montgomery’s leadership.

We suffered an analogous blunder of military policy in the recent U.S. war in Southeast Asia. Our military forces were deployed according to definitions of objectives and means of warfare controlled by the U.S. foreign-policy establishment. General Giap and others exploited this “Montgomery-like” folly of the U.S. political command, by applying the principle of “mobile development” to a much broader dimension of warfare than operating U.S. combat doctrine could effectively address. From a purely military standpoint, Giap’s approach could have been flanked, had our policy been based on bringing U.S. superiority into effective play; however, as long as the United States played by the “set-piece warfare” rules of the game dictated by the U.S. foreign-policy establishment, the U.S. position was effectively flanked by Hanoi’s strategy. The superiority of U.S. society and culture was kept out of play: our advantages in effectively deployable technology and our culturally determined disposition for innovative mobile development.

What we have thus identified as the most admirable features of military policy, are also at a premium in space exploration. The superior qualities of combat potentials, for mobile development, of the generally un-militaristic U.S. society, flow from the fact that our nation was founded upon a republican form of elaboration of Augustinian culture: our emphasis upon the social equality of the individual, a value which may be modified only as one person is developed as of a better moral character and greater science-like intellectual development than another. These are the qualities which best lend themselves to successfully sustained space exploration.

At present, broadly speaking, Americans lack those psychological potentials for space exploration which existed during the 1960s and earlier. Through the influence of those irrationalists, such as the “ecologists” and the counterculture generally, many of our citizens have lost connection with the principles of moral character and science-like intellectual development traditional to the Augustinian heritage. We, as a nation, are presently in the process of being self-destroyed by the growing influence of the “ecologists” and the radical counterculture. Over the recent 20 years, we have undergone a “cultural-paradigm shift,” away from Augustinian tradition.

NASA/James McDivitt

“Over the recent 20 years, we have undergone a ‘cultural-paradigm shift,’ away from Augustinian tradition.. . . The psychological demands placed upon our society by bold ventures into space, are precisely the stimulant to bring us back to ourselves, our moral heritage.” Shown here is Ed White, first American astronaut to perform a spacewalk during the Gemini 4 mission in 1965.

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

This recent difficulty is not, however, an argument against space exploration. Precisely the opposite; the psychological demands placed upon our society by bold ventures into space, are precisely the stimulant best recommended to bring us back to ourselves, our moral heritage.

There are many practical things which must be done, urgently, to save our nation. These are the indispensable, which we shall lack the resolution to accomplish, unless our decision-making once again embraces the essential.

Space is there. It is a challenge within man’s grasp. It is a challenge which bears upon the improvement of life on Earth. We must respond to that challenge with goodness.

What is the desire of the good person? What else but to discover the laws of creation less imperfectly, to the end that our knowledge, as guide to our practice, deviates less from that will of the Creator expressed in the lawful ordering of this universe. Who can be good, who does not yearn for agreement with the Creator, and, on that account, to lessen the imperfection of one’s own understanding of the lawful ordering of creation?

What could be a more beautiful event in the exitence of mortal mankind than to step up from the mud of our planet, into space, to accept whatever challenge we discover to be awaiting us there? To think of such a task as imminently before us, is to experience an awesome sense of beauty within us.

On this planet, especially during the recent 20 years, increasing portions of the populations of even Western Europe and the Americas are afflicted with cultural despair.

“There is no future,” say the doom-saying “ecologists.” Believing the “ecologist” propaganda, the young person seeks momentary escape in the here and now: Drug usage proliferates, destroying growing ratios of our youth, on this account. That same stink of irrationalism and cultural pessimism, which spawned the Nazi upsurge in Weimar Germany, spreads among our nations, spoiling the very will of our nations to survive.

We must turn the mind’s eye of the young upward, to the heavens, while we point: “There lies the future of mankind.”

In that respect, the conquest of space is a prize beyond price.

NASA

Artist’s depiction of an Earth Departure Stage of a proposed NASA Mars mission, docked to the Crew Exploration Vehicle.

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

The Economic Benefits of Space Colonization

The economic benefits of space exploration are of two classes. The less significant of those two classes of benefits, is products imported to Earth from Space. The principle benefit, is the improved technology Earth gains through knowledge derived from the process of space exploration.

We consider the first class of benefits briefly, to get this out of the way. We are then free to concentrate our attention on the vastly more important, and more complex kinds of benefits, of the second class.

Bringing any sort of heavy cargo from space to Earth’s surface, is an idea best suited to the unscientific mind of the Hollywood space opera writer. The cost per ton of interplanetary flight, and the costs of bringing cargo from Earth-orbit, down through the atmosphere to our planet’s surface, mean, that we shall never use mines on the Moon, on asteroids, or Mars, or anywhere else outside the Earth, for materials of production back here at home.

The only products sane people are likely to bring from space to Earth, are products which have a relatively immense value per pound of weight. The often-discussed growing of industrial crystals in the low gravity Earth-orbit, is typical of the limited classes of products we shall actually import from space laboratories. Otherwise, we shall import some scientific samples for our laboratories and teaching institutions, and perhaps a few small souvenirs.

Forget the idea of building giant mirrors in space, to catch large globs of sunlight for broadcast to the Earth’s surface. There are some interesting engineering problems posed by discussing such a possibility, but, economically, the idea is a very silly one. “Solar energy” for industrial or residential use, is not “free.” Collecting the energy is the most expensive way to obtain energy, in dollars per kilowatt, yet imagined, vastly more expensive energy than that from fossil fuel or nuclear plants. Currently, we spend more energy in producing and maintaining solar collectors, than the total energy we obtain from such collectors during their entire useful lives. The idea that industrial solar energy will ever be economically competitive with other forms of industrial energy, is an unscientific pipe dream, fit only for Hollywood scriptwriters; the energy-density cross section of solar energy, as measured in kilowatts per square meter, per hour, means that no possible solution will ever exist for this economic problem.

That does not mean that solar collectors are useless; they are useful to the degree they are very light and portable, and can be used therefore where other sources of energy are not available. Until we establish an industrial power grid on the Moon, for example, they would have worthwhile functions as a supplementary part of total energy sources used by the advance exploration and construction teams.

However, even in such exceptional cases, we could never rely significantly on solar-energy collection. The essential features of colonization of the Moon include getting oxygen and hydrogen from rock, for supplies of synthetic air and water. To accomplish this economically requires energy feedstocks of very high energy-density cross section, by industrial standards. We must rely on fission and fusion modes of generation of energy, and a heavy reliance on energy-dense tools such as lasers.

NASA

Not only must lunar structures house laboratories and food-growing capabilities, but they must be spacious enough for comfortable living. Shown here is an artist’s cutaway depiction of an inflatable lunar habitat with an airlock (left) and a base operations center.

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

Generally, in tons, Earth will export a great deal into space and obtain very little import from space in return. Production in space will be for export. We shall mine the Moon, to produce most of the weight of our space fleet, and most of the weight we bring for early stages of Mars-colonization. Most of this mining and production outside the Earth will be done for a few elementary purposes:

(1) to reduce the cost of transporting weight from Earth’s surface to Earth-orbit;

(2) to limit the drain on Earth’s primary resources;

(3) to provide local supply for colonies in space.

The chief export from space to Earth will be knowledge. That knowledge will be worth vastly more to the inhabitants of our planet than any physical objects we might import from other planets and moons. That knowledge will be worth vastly more than the Earth’s total investment in space exploration.

The “payback” on the investment will come in two forms. During the next 40 years, the chief “payback” will be the most rapid rate of growth of productivity on Earth in human history. If we start now, the productivity of the United States will more than double present levels by the end of this century. By 2027, the average productivity in the United States will be at least 10 times what it is today.

NASA

Artist’s depiction of autonomous robotic production and cryogenic storage of oxygen and methane rocket propellant, using carbon dioxide from the Mars atmosphere and water from Martian soil.

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

All of those increases in productivity, or at least nearly all of them, will be the result of development of branches of physical science already being developed on Earth today. By forcing ourselves to develop these technologies, as the schedule of the Moon-Mars colonization program forces us to solve one problem after the other, we create inventions, based on those technologies, which will greatly increase the productivity of industry, and will also result in great improvements in quality of products bought by businesses and households.

Once our space observatories and laboratories have been functioning for a while, a new element will be added to increase productivity on Earth. This will begin to happen about the end of the present century, provided we follow approximately the schedule of steps suggested earlier in this report. By aid of our work in space observatories and laboratories, we shall make discoveries bearing upon the fundamental laws of our universe. Many of these will be discoveries we could, perhaps, never have made, except by aid of such space exploration.

So, whereas most of the increase of Earth’s productivity, during the first 20 to 30 years of the program, will come from developing the established frontiers of science, between 20 and 40 years ahead, the impact of new discoveries made by aid of space exploration, will tend to become a dominant feature of technological progress on Earth.

By between 50 and 60 years from now, the main source of scientific and on Earth will be space exploration. We shall become a “space civilization,” as distinct from an Earth-bound civilization. Sixty years from now, perhaps not more than a few million pioneers will be actually working in space, but we shall be a “space civilization” nonetheless. Our culture on Earth, our new ideas, will be meshed with, and dominated increasingly by, the ideas generated in connection with space exploration.

However, for at least the next 50 years, the way new technologies will increase productivity will be determined by the same principles of economic science that described human progress since the Golden Renaissance in 15th century Italy and France. Even 100, or 200 years from now, economic science will change very little in respect to fundamentals, because the way human beings assimilate technological progress to cause increase of productivity, will change very little.

NASA/Pat Rawlings

“By between 50 and 60 years from now, the main source of scientific activity on Earth will be space exploration. We shall become a ‘space civilization,’ as distinct from an Earth-bound civilization.” Depicted here is a Martian growth chamber, where fruits and vegetables could be grown hydroponically.

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

In other words, we may be fully confident that if we base the Moon-Mars mission-assignment on the right economic policies for today, those same policies will be the right choices for 40 to 50 years from now.

The problem to which we must turn our attention now, is the fact that very few so-called “economists” know anything at all about economic science; in fact, they know much less than the leading economists of the United States knew during the first half of the 19th century, and even much less than the founders of our republic. The problem here is what is taught as “economics” in our universities today is not really economics, but what should be called “money theory.” Even in our basic industries today, management knows much less about economics than the managements of the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s. Two decades ago and earlier, operating managements of our leading corporations were, like the managements of Japan’s industries today, either trained engineers, or men with an equivalent kind of knowledge accumulated in coming up the ladder from the production floor. Today’s economists and “new breed” of Harvard Business School-type managers, are specialists in buying and selling, but have very little knowledge of, or interest in, the economy of agricultural and industrial production.

The practical problem involved, as it affects the Moon-Mars mission-assignment, is this. Almost none of our professional economists, or the other policy shapers they influence, has any comprehension of the kinds of institutionalized economic and monetary policies the United States would be obliged to adopt, either to get out of the present collapse of agriculture and industry, or to construct the kind of space program indicated. There are still a few senior officials, either retired or nearing retirement, in our aerospace industry, or in military ranks, who remember from firsthand experience, how and why the 1960s aerospace program succeeded as brilliantly as it did. Then, even into the 1970s, a very significant portion of our relevant governmental and industry officials, and large numbers of engineers and other relevant professionals, had the kinds of knowledge and experience needed to put the Moon-landing program into operation and ensure its timely success. Today, those are a rapidly dwindling, tiny minority within the policy-shaping establishments.

This is reflected in the most obviously incompetent features of the reports issued by the Rogers Commission. Putting the question of sabotage to one side, the fact remains that NASA no longer has the depth of professional competence it had even a few years ago, to say nothing of the early 1970s. Over the past 10 years, NASA, our aerospace capability generally, and our nation’s vendors to both aerospace and military services, have been gutted of human and material resources. Like our aging commercial air services, exhaustion, obsolescence, and savage cost cutting, have brought us to the point that a spiral of major disasters must be expected. Whenever a once-proud capability is run into the ground, as our aerospace program has been gutted, so, sooner or later, everything that could break down will break down.

Despite the experts included in the Rogers’ Commission, the Commission’s efforts to lay the blame upon almost anything but sequence of cutbacks in government aerospace budgets (or the inexperience of the acting NASA official in charge), makes the report as a whole essentially incompetent. The problem lies not within NASA, but in what shifts in government policy have done to ruin NASA’s capabilities. The worst thing about the Rogers’ Commission report, relative to the matter immediately at hand here, is that the toleration for that Commission’s point of incompetence, as we have indicated that incompetence, indicates a policy-shaping mind-set around government. As long as that defective mind-set persists, no old or new program, either in aerospace or many other vital programs, will end up in anything but a cascading accumulation of disasters.

It is therefore urgent that the shaping of policy for a Moon-Mars mission-assignment be based on instructing the policy-shapers in the relevant ABCs of economic science. We shall not present anything so comprehensive as even a crash course in economic science here; we shall merely identify some very basic principles, and shall indicate how the principles bear directly on the policy governing the mission assignment.

‘Physical Economy’

As Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton and the later American economists understood more clearly than anyone else in the world, “economics,” or “political economy,” consists of coordinating two very distinct processes. The one process is called “physical economy.” This deals with the production of goods and services, and their physical distribution. The second process, the flow of credit, indebtedness, and currency is the monetary process. What Hamilton first named as “the American System of political economy,” locates essential reality in the processes of “physical economy,” and prescribes that monetary processes must be brought into conformity with the criteria of physical economy. The opposing doctrine of political economy, that of the London and Swiss adversaries of the United States in the American Revolution, the so-called “free trade” dogma, demands that the physical economy be subjugated to a “free trade” notion of the monetary process as such.

The first, the American System, measures economic performance, broadly, by the yardstick of increase of physical output per capita, and by the role of what Henry C. Carey described as “the economy of labor.” The “economy of labor,” represents a reduction in the amount of labor required to produce a standard market basket of producer or household commodities, measuring those market baskets in terms of only physical goods plus a very restricted list of essential services. This “economy of labor” is accomplished through technological progress in an energy-intensive, capital-intensive mode of investment in basic economic infrastructure, agriculture, and manufacturing.

The second, the monetarist system, ignores the effect of lowering prices below the actual cost of production of such goods, in favor of investors’ buying such goods at the cheapest price, to sell them at the highest possible margin of money profit. Instead of measuring economic growth in physical output per capita, monetarists measure growth in terms of money income of sellers of final commodities, including money income from any form of commerce not prohibited as illegal. According to monetarist theory, the Gross National Income of the United States could be caused to leap upwards, by legalizing prostitution and trafficking in dangerous narcotics, even if this accelerated the collapse of agriculture and industry.

The monetary policies of the American System were first introduced to the 17th century Massachusetts Bay Colony: The commonwealth declared a monopoly on the issuance of currency, and used the loan of this currency issue to promote trade and investment in physical output. During the18th century, this policy for the Americas was promoted by Cotton Mather and Benjamin Franklin. These monetary policies were followed in the U.S. government under the Federalists and the American Whigs, including President Abraham Lincoln’s economic mobilization of the early 1860s, which transformed the United States into both a major military power and a leading agro-industrial power.

EIRNS/Stuart Lewis

Alexander Hamilton was the first to introduce, as official government policy, the economics of technology, the Leibnizian principals of physical economy.

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

The principles of physical economy were discovered by Gottfried Leibniz. These principles were introduced to the United States through Leibniz’s English ally, Jonathan Swift, and, later, through Franklin’s close association with Leibniz’s circles in Europe. The first elaborated application of these principles of physical economy as U.S. government policy appeared in Hamilton’s December 1791 Report to the Congress, “On the Subject of Manufactures.” This latter was the leading governmental policy statement establishing the American System of political economy.

This writer is the world’s leading living exponent of the American System of political economy today, and is also responsible for the only advance in the science of economics (physical economy) since the 1870s. The author’s discovery has great and direct bearing upon the implementation of a Moon-Mars mission-assignment. What the author discovered, as a by-product of refuting the Wiener-Shannon and von Neumann dogmas of “information theory,” was the means for measuring the cause-effect connection between the introduction of an advance in technology and a resulting increase in the productivity of labor. We now sum up those features of economic science which bear directly on the successful implementation of a Moon-Mars mission-assignment.

Over the recent 140 years, it has become the commonplace assumption that primitive human society was of the form called a “hunting and gathering society.” In such a mode of existence, an average of 10 square kilometers of the Earth’s land area would have been required to sustain the life of an average individual, in a wretched state of existence, and at life expectancies significantly below 20 years of age. This would have permitted a maximum human population of our planet of approximately 10 million individuals.

Today, the Earth’s population is approaching 5 billion individuals. Three-quarters of this increase has occurred since the 15th century Golden Renaissance, and that increase chiefly as either a direct or indirect result of policies of scientific and technological progress, including notions of public-health measures, set into motion during that Renaissance. This is an increase in potential population density, of nearly three orders of magnitude, above the level of that “primitive society” to which today’s “ecologists” would return us, by aid of the most massive genocide imaginable.

Essentially, the measure of economic performance of societies is measurement of some rate of increase of the potential population density. This improvement is the result of changes in human behavior of a type associated with technological progress. For this progress to occur, investment in productive employment must occur in an energy-intensive, capital-intensive mode.

If this progress does not occur, then continued existence in a relatively stagnant level of productive technology means a marginal depletion of a significant portion of the spectrum of required primary resources. This depletion causes a rise in the average cost of production of a standard market basket. As a result, the potential population density falls. When potential population density falls below the actual population density to a significant degree, part or most of the population affected is wiped out by the logic of famine and epidemic disease.

Hence, some minimal rate of technological progress, in an energy-intensive, capital-intensive mode, is indispensable to sustain even the equilibrium of an existing economy (society). There are certain general restrictions, which define the minimal preconditions, either for economic growth, or even for merely sustaining economic equilibrium. We identify these interrelated requirements now, as briefly as possible.

Statistically, economic analysis must begin with a measurement of standard market basket contents of both household goods and producer goods, relative to an existing level of technology. For all conditions of change, the amount of productive labor required to supply a standard market basket, per capita, of both household goods and producer goods, must be decreased, and the quantity and quality of the contents of such market baskets must be increased with technological progress.

Any analytical solution in economics practice, which fails to satisfy those market basket conditions, is a false solution.

On condition that that requirement is satisfied, the following, additional, interrelated preconditions for sustainable technological progress must also be satisfied:

(1) The quantity of usable energy supplied, both per capita and per hectare, must increase. This is measured, alternately, better, as an increase in the usable energy throughput per capita unit of potential population density (increase of energy intensity, in first approximation).

(2) There must be a trend of rise in the average temperature-equivalent of primary energy stocks supplied to basic production (increase of energy intensity, in second approximation).

(3) There must be a decrease of the ratio of the labor force (households) employed in rural production, relative to urban employment in infrastructure and manufacturing, on condition that the society’s per capita output of food and fiber increase (capital intensity, in first approximation).

(4) There must be a decrease of the ratio of the labor force (households) employed in urban production of household goods, relative to production of producer goods, on condition that the per capita market basket of household goods is improved in quantity and quality (capital intensity, in second approximation).

(5) Technology as Leibniz first defined “technology” must be advancing.

These requirements circumscribe the process in which technological advances are introduced to the productive process. Given: that the U.S. economy is committed to net growth of productivity, through technological progress in an energy-intensive, capital-intensive mode. Given, also: the set of restrictions we have just specified. To isolate the linkage between the Moon-Mars mission-assignment and rapid rises in productivity “spilling over” into the economy from this program, we must focus attention on the implications of the fifth of the numbered constraints listed above.

To proceed into that point, we should begin by reemphasizing, that the term “economic science” must be restricted in definition and usage, to signify “physical economy” as founded by Leibniz. In conception, “physical economy” means the mathematical-physics view of an interdependent process of production and consumption. As the foregoing list of restrictions implies, this mathematical physics leans strongly in the direction of thermodynamics. The proper definition of “technology,” a conception first explicitly supplied by Leibniz, is the central conception of “physical economy.”

The author’s own original discoveries in economic science, are focused upon further elaboration of Leibniz’s conception of “technology.” It can be shown, that the author’s discoveries can be reduced, formally, to a retrospective application of relevant work of Gauss, Dirichlet, Weierstrass, Riemann, and Cantor, to supply an enriched elaboration of Leibniz’s original definition. It is also relevant to stress, that the conception of “technology,” so elaborated, is totally incompatible with the notions of “information theory” associated with Wiener-Shannon and von Neumann, and also incompatible, in a directly related way, with the statistical (“reductionist”) definition of “negentropy” associated with the work of Boltzmann.

This report will not summarize as much of the proper definition of “technology” as bears directly on essential policy features of a Moon-Mars mission-assignment; we shall not explore the full implications of the distinctions just identified, but only as much as is directly relevant to the matter immediately at hand.

CC/Jaimrsilva

“The term ‘economic science’ must be restricted in definition and usage, to signify ‘physical economy’ as founded by Gottfried Leibniz.”

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

Leibniz’s elaboration of economic science began, in 1672, in a short paper entitled “Society & Economy,” in which the theme is the most general restriction we have identified above as a constraint acting upon the interrelated five, numbered restrictions. His continuing work in the elaboration of economic science, placed the emphasis on study of the general characteristics of heat-powered machinery. This inquiry was adjunct to Leibniz’s assistance in the development of the first steam-powered engine (that of Denis Papin), and was referenced to Leibniz’s proposals for reform of mining, transportation, and manufacturing, through introduction of generalized use of the coal-fired steam engine. Leibniz’s catch phrase for this reform, later called “the industrial revolution,” was that by employment of such heat-powered machine, “one man may do the work of a hundred” others employing then-prevailing methods.

Broadly, given a species of heat-powered machinery, productivity of the operative increases as a function of the increase of the amount of heat supplied to power the machine. This is made more general, by adding that by increasing the energy-density cross section and relative coherence of the energy supplied, productive powers of labor are also increased as a function of this factor. It is within this setting that Leibniz’s conception of technology appears.

For brevity, assume the hypothetical case, that two heat-powered machines are employed, alternately, by the same operator, to produce the same kind of work (product). Assume the very special case, that the two machines consume the same amount of coal energy per hour (at the same energy-density cross section for the input energy), but that the operator produces greater output with one machine than with the other.

This illustrative case could be refined for greater exactness, but the point can be illustrated sufficiently well for our present purposes with aid of the case as stated.

The only accountable difference between the performances of the two machines, is a difference in the internal organization of the machines. The idea of such a difference being an efficient cause of increase of productivity is the raw meaning of the term “technology.”

The idea of “technology” is made more precise in the following way. Let us discover a way in which we can measure better and relatively poorer forms of internal organization of heat-powered machines, from the standpoint just given in our illustration. The standpoint from which this measurement can be accomplished, is Leibniz’s geometrical principle of Least Action. Actually, to do this as precisely as we require, we must resort to the related work of Gauss, Dirichlet, Weierstrass, and Riemann, on the matter of construction of “nonlinear” continuous functions. The indicated further refinement with aid of Riemann’s contributions, we need not elaborate here; it is sufficient to identify the point that such a necessary qualification exists.

The working point is, that there exists an ordering principle of physics, by means of which we can define one degree of internal organization of processes as of a higher order than another; furthermore, that this ordering principle is in functional correspondence with an efficient increase in the productivity of operatives.

The function which defines that efficient correspondence between higher degrees of organization and increase of the productive powers of labor, is the strict definition of “technology.”

The practical problem, on which the connection between scientific progress and increased productivity of labor depends, is the need to uncover a common principle, which, on the one side, describes those scientific conceptions we call discoveries, and which, on the other side, describes the changes in organization of machinery or analogous processes resulting from introducing scientific discoveries to production in the form of improved technology. This means that, on the one side, we must be able to reduce the relevant aspect of the scientist’s mental processes to the same form as technological improvements in organization of machinery. For our practical purposes here, we can limit ourselves to a description of the connection.

For such cases as Nicholas of Cusa, Leonardo da Vinci, Pascal, Leibniz, Monge, Gauss, Riemann, and other prominent cases, we know that the organization of their scientific thinking was consistent with what we call today a “constructive geometry,” sometimes also named a “synthetic geometry.” The 19th-century elaboration of such a geometry, chiefly by the work of Gauss, Dirichlet, Weierstrass, and Riemann, is indispensable for mapping the mind’s scientific-thinking processes in more than broad, descriptive terms. A scientific discovery, involves the generation of one or more “singularities” to a previously established geometrical model. Such mental processes belong to the class of solutions to “nonlinear” continuous functions, as developed by Dirichlet, Weierstrass, and Riemann.

We may take a shortcut at this point. We have indicated that the mental concept we call a scientific discovery can be treated as a special class of geometric “models.” We have indicated, that there is a congruence between this mental model of a scientific idea, and the changed internal organization of the machine resulting from the application of that scientific idea, “technology,” to the improved design of the machine.

In other words, the proper sort of rigorous mathematical thinking in physics, is a reflection of what the physicist’s mental processes actually do in generating a new discovery. It is merely indispensable to construct that mathematics in the proper way: in fact, a Riemannian synthetic geometry. (Mathematical models based on a deductive-axiomatic arithmetic or algebra, do not supply such a representation.) We are reporting, that the proper mathematical-physics model of the physicist’s thinking, is a model of the relevant changes in organization (technology) of the improved machine resulting from this discovery.

To some this might seem rather exotic, at first glance.

A bit of common sense helps to dispel that impression. Practical thinking is practical, only to the degree that the ideas generated cause the hands of the thinker to restructure their behavior to the effect predicted by the idea. To accomplish this result, the mind must think in terms of structured cause-effect interactions between the thinker’s hands and the process he is attempting to control. This sort of structure, we call “geometry,” the kind of geometry that satisfies that requirement, is what is known variously as a “constructive” or “synthetic” geometry.

In an idealized case, a manufacturer dissatisfied with the productivity obtained with a certain design of machine, calls in an ideal creative thinker familiar with such machines. The thinker studies the internal organization of the machine’s processes. The thinker absorbs the idea of such organization into his mental processes, in the form of an idea of organization. He manipulates that geometrical image in his mind to the purpose of discovering a relevant sort of improved internal geometry for a machine of that class. He returns to bring the revised design of the machine’s internal organization into geometrical conformity with his idea. The idea can be compared broadly to a blueprint of the new design. In fact, when a designer constructs a blueprint, he is putting that kind of thinking on paper, geometrically.

The introduction of science to production, as improved technology, is of the form of creating a physical model of a mental conception.

This is precisely what is done in experimental physics. As Professor Felix Klein demonstrated most effectively, all really good experimental physicists think geometrically, not algebraically. So, for such a physicist, an experimental hypothesis is already more or less in the form of the physical design of an experimental apparatus. Such a physicist walks into the university’s toolmakers’ shop, and works with the chief toolmaker to build an apparatus consistent with that idea.

Later, improved experiments will be in the form of changes in the structure of the first model. The correspondence between the geometrical form of scientific thinking, and the changes in organization of the apparatus, is more or less transparent to insightful observers of this process.

In the case of technological progress, the physicist walks into the industrial machine shop, and works closely with the engineers and toolmakers there, to construct a new variety of machine tool or other capital equipment of production. The logic of this is the same as for the case of the scientists working with the tool shop at the university, in building an experimental apparatus.

This improved machine tool, or other capital equipment, when introduced to the production floor, becomes the means by which scientific progress is translated into technological progress, and increased productivity, on the production floor.

This view of the process of introducing improved technology, guides us to the right economic policies for the Moon-Mars mission-assignment:

(1) Accelerate fundamental scientific research in all relevant areas.

(2) Expand budgets and staffs for construction of experimental apparatus.

(3) Greatly increase operating capital throughput in the machine tool sector of industry.

(4) Stimulate preferential flow of retained earnings, invested savings, and lower-priced credit, into capital-intensive investment in production in relevant areas of industry.

(5) Foster accelerating rates of turnover in production of machine tools and other capital goods of production, and provide a premium incentive for high rates of technological attrition in designs of these investment goods.

National Economic Policy

This policy has a significant resemblance to exactly what the United States did, especially between the years 1939 and 1943, in cranking up the U.S. economy to levels at which we could sustain the war effort. There is nothing accidental in the similarity.

The leftists—especially the leftists—used to insist, that it was the war which stimulated the long-delayed 1939-1943 U. S. recovery from the Great Depression of the 1930s. The leftists based themselves on monetarist thinking; they often leaned toward a British Fabian’s blending of John Maynard Keynes and Karl Marx, of the sort taught at Cambridge’s King’s College. This was the argument, that the market demands for war goods stimulated the economic recovery. This is what has been sometimes described as the “demand-pull” doctrine: that it is the donkey of “market demand” which pulls the cart of investment and expanded production after it.

Following the postwar recession, there was a recovery which coincided with the Korean War. Later, following the 1957-1959 recession, there was the “post-Sputnik recovery,” which lasted through 1966. In each case, most of the labor union economists stuck to their Keynesian donkey’s dogma, that “war demand” expanded the market for produced goods, which stimulated recovery.

Monetarists have never understood: It is productive investment which generates “demand.” If left-wing monetarists stick to past performance, they will accuse us of reviving the unfortunate Herbert Hoover’s “trickle-down” myth: that if wealthier people become richer, some of this money will “trickle down,” eventually, to the rest of the population.

What we are recommending is not Herbert Hoover, nor the Paul Mellon who engineered the U.S. side of the 1931 banking crisis from his post at the Treasury Department; quite the opposite, the approach taken by Franklin Roosevelt and his advisors at the end of the 1930s. Create a high rate of taxation in upper income brackets, but with a very big investment tax-credit loophole: supply generous investment tax credits for technologically progressive, energy-intensive, capital-intensive modes of productive investment. Make large volumes of credit available, at especially low borrowing costs, for such forms of investment. “Arms spending, or no arms spending,” the U.S. economy will take off in a vigorous recovery from any recession, any time.

It was such measures, plus some approximation of the same sort of measures, which Roosevelt used to crank up the economy during the 1939-1943 interval. Once the obstacle of his 1940 reelection campaign was past, our economy was well on the road toward a “take-off” point in the recovery.

True, as early as 1936, and clearly by 1938, Roosevelt knew the United States was going to support Britain in a war with Nazi Germany; during most of his second administration, Roosevelt was planning the U.S. participation in that war. True, politically, Roosevelt was able to push through his economic-recovery reforms at the end of that second term, because he was supported by influential anglophiles and others, who intended that the United States should mobilize to intervene in World War II, and soon. Apart from this political factor, the war had nothing to do with the economic recovery as such. The same economic reforms would have worked far more successfully without the wartime accumulation of pent-up monetary inflation, if there had been no war.

It was “investment push,” not “war demand pull,” which caused that recovery.

In considering the policies for the Moon-Mars mission-assignment today, it is useful to put the period of the U.S. economy, 1931-1966, into general perspective.

Under the policies of Coolidge and Hoover, the U.S. economy of the late 1930s seemed to zoom upward in an orgy of prosperity, although agriculture was collapsing into disaster, and industry was becoming shaky at the foundations. The collapse of the effort to reorganize the German war-reparations debt through the proposed “Young Plan,” set off a chain reaction through the world’s financial markets. The 1929 stock market crash was chiefly a symptom of this development, as well as a result of the follies of Paul Mellon and President Hoover. During 1931, with the collapse of the Vienna Kreditanstalt and the subsequent collapse of the British pound, the world’s financial system toppled, and the U.S. economy slumped into a deep depression, followed by a slow erosion over the rest of the 1930s. What were viewed wishfully as the partial economic recoveries of the mid-1930s, were actually based on using up the stored investment in physical wealth built up during the preceding decades. There was no actual economic recovery until after the 1939-1940 turning point.

During the interval 1939-1943, the U.S. economy went through an accelerating recovery. This began by mobilizing every scrap of usable junk machinery, and recruits from the unemployment lines, often working in formerly abandoned or semi-abandoned buildings. After 1940, this “scrounging” phase of the mobilization shifted into a retooling phase, which reached an approximate peak during the 1944 election campaign.

It was the retooling implemented during the war, which gave our economy the industrial structure, which, in turn, carried us through the middle 1960s—with some ups and downs in between.

Generally, except for the short-lived, post-Korea, 1955-1956 consumer-credit bubble of the first Eisenhower administration, every recovery from a recession appeared to be based on an arms-buildup drive. On closer inspection, what actually happened, was that we resumed some aspects of the investment stimulants which the 1939-1943 buildup built into the design of the 1946-1966 National Security system.

Beginning 1966-1967, the doctrine of “postindustrial society” was embedded into our national policy structure. It was at that point, that the 1946-1966 National Security policy began to be thrown away. The new doctrine of “postindustrial,” or “technetronic” society took over Washington, at an accelerating rate, from that point onward. Today, underneath an increasing, thin and unstable veneer of “prosperity,” U.S. infrastructure, agriculture, and manufacturing are already in approximately the same state of exhaustion as during the 1930s Great Depression.

What we should have learned from this experience of the past 60 years of ups and downs, is consistent with what economic science teaches us. During every period the U.S. government has returned to the American System of political economy, or even a reasonable approximation of it, our economy has prospered. During every period we have adopted Adam Smith’s policies, we have experienced a new depression as a result. The 1815-1818 depression, the 1830s depression caused by Jackson’s and van Buren’s policies, the depressions of the 1850s, the long depression of the 1873-1886 period, the depressions of the 1890s, 1905-1907, the early 1920s, and the Hoover depression, were each caused by “free trade” policies of government. The vigorous growth under President Washington, the recovery of the 1820s, the economic upsurge of the 1860s, the wartime recoveries of this century, and the “post-Sputnik” recovery under President Kennedy, were each caused by our government’s total or partial adoption of American System policies.

The aspect of the American System which must be stressed, to produce a true economic recovery today, and to get the Moon-Mars mission-assignment into gear, can be simplistically, but fairly described in the following terms.

Imagine that any major national economy, such as the United States’, can be seen as like a giant agro-industrial enterprise. Our economy is a mixture of government operations and private enterprises, but the economic activities of these diverse enterprises interact so interdependently, that the fate of each depends to a very large degree on the policies of practice and performance of the others.

The principal features of this “consolidated enterprise” are the following:

(1) Construction and maintenance of basic economic infrastructure, by a combination of federal, state, and local government and public utilities. This is the foundation upon which agriculture, manufacturing, and the household economies are based.

(2) Output of physical goods, other than the product of public utilities, chiefly by agriculture and industry.

(3) Output of certain special categories of services, including science, engineering, medicine, and teaching, essential to maintain and improve the technology of production and the productive potentials of the labor force.

NASA

In this artist’s rendering, a nuclear thermal transfer vehicle, on its way to the Jovian system, refuels in a Mars orbit near the Martian moon Phobos.

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

That is the economic output of our economy, the only thing which should be counted in statistics measuring national product and net national income. In addition to this economic output, our national economy carries a very large, and expanding “overhead burden.” From the standpoint of physical economy, this “overhead burden” is sorted into the following primary, functional sub-classifications:

(1) Economic “overhead expense.” Those administrative expenditures which are incurred for reasons other than direct management of production itself, or in physical distribution of goods, but which bear directly upon the organization of productive investment.

(2) Institutional “overhead expense.” Those selling and administrative costs and expenses, which are necessary to maintain essential governmental or entrepreneurial organizations’ functioning as institutions.

(3) Waste “overhead expense.” This includes unemployment, revenues of redundant labor-intensive services generally, usury, immoral activities, and crime.

In our present, misconceived system of national income accounting, the marginal money income of each and all of these activities is treated equally. In other words, the “value added” attributed to income from “overhead expense” activities, is treated as income in the same degree as income from production of national output of goods and essential services!

It is for that reason, at least chiefly so, that our government reports rising national income during a period that infrastructure, agriculture, and manufacturing are collapsing at major depression rates, a collapse which has continued at an average of between 2.5 percent to 3 percent from 1981-1985, and at an accelerating rate since late 1985.

One of the most important financial ratios in any private enterprise, is the ratio of overhead expense to costs of fixed and operating capital employed for production of physical output plus essential services. If this ratio rises significantly, the firm is a sick one. The same is true of our national economy, as measured in national income accounting terms of reference.

In 1946, about 60 percent of our labor force was employed in production of physical output, roughly a ratio of overhead expense to production of 2:3. Today, a shrinking 25 percent or less of our labor force is employed in production of physical output, approximately a ratio of 4:1. Our economy is very, very sick.

Employment of operatives remained essentially stagnant in absolute numbers over most of the past 15 years, until the onset of a recent, rapid drop. During that period, the productivity of labor has dropped, and the market basket content of per capita household income has dropped. The decline in productivity of labor is most prominently caused by the following trends of the 1970s and 1980s:

(1) The accelerating collapse of basic economic infrastructure, especially since the New York City crisis of 1975.

(2) Erosion of net capital stocks of agriculture and industry, since the 1970-1971 monetary crises, and accelerated by the 1974 petroleum crisis and the introduction of Volcker’s policy of “controlled disintegration of the economy” in October 1979.

(3) A governmental and central-banking policy of forcing disinvestment in energy-intensive, capital-intensive modes of production of goods.

(40 A shift in composition of employment of operatives, from highly skilled occupations, to low-wage employment in unskilled occupations, with emphasis upon wasteful or wastefully redundant labor-intensive services.

(5) An accelerating collapse of both the skill levels and skills potential of the labor force, caused by a breakdown in education and by the influence of the counterculture.

It’s no way to run a railroad.

The cause of this sickness lies chiefly in the past 20 years’ policy trends in government, central banking, and the moods of the business consensus. It is on these three points that the government must act. Relevant policy trends in government and central banking must be sharply, dramatically reversed. Government must exert leadership to the purpose of remoralizing the business consensus on medium-to-long-term investment prospects.

Government and central banking must act to reverse the trends in ratio of overhead expense to productive investment, and in the ratio in employment of the labor force. Government and central banking must adopt taxation and credit policies, which sharply constrict flows of public credit, savings, and income into the overhead-expense categories, while increasing massively the relative flows into technological progress in an energy-intensive, capital-intensive mode.

Government must act to organize leading public and entrepreneurial forces of the economy around projects which give structure to a technological breakout. This impact must be directed to the capital-goods producing sector, especially the machine-tool sector. Government must concentrate on its constitutional areas of economic responsibility: military and infrastructure expenditures, and stimulation of the domestic economy through tariff policies and promotion of U.S. high-technology exports.

Apart from infrastructure, such government initiatives of recovery today, are concentrated in the military and aerospace sectors, and in government leadership in biological research and governmental sectors of medical programs, such as the veterans’ hospital system.

In the high-technology breakout sector, we are speaking of about 10 percent of total manufacturing and related classifications, of which government expenditure is a small fraction of the total. The case of military expenditures for manufactured goods and analogous categories of procurement, is a good illustration of the process.

Of total military expenditures, perhaps less than 10 percent of the required defense budget is actually consumed in introducing new technologies. Most of the Defense Department’s procurement from manufacturing, about 10 percent of total current manufacturing currently, is spent for what are essentially off-the-shelf technologies; only a rather thin, but ultimately decisive margin is actually spent on creating new technologies. Over the recent ten years, most emphatically, this thin margin has been withering away. The prime aerospace vendors, for example, have been shifted from technology-intensive mode, toward an off-the-shelf technology mode. The ratio of total investment aimed at high rates of technological gain in quality of product, has been withering toward a vanishing point. This is partially a reflection of shifts away from high-technological gain in defense procurement; it is perhaps more emphatically a result of government and central banking taxation and credit policies.

Governmental and banking policies have fostered a tendency to drain off capital stocks, to generate income disbursed either for defense of firms against financial raiders, or for diversification away from production and essential services, into “overhead expense” categories.

A relatively small shift in total income flows through such enterprises, to reverse the present trends indicated, would suffice to put the U.S. economy back into a high-technological-gain mode. Relatively few billions per year, less than the equivalent of 5 percent of the defense budget, will make that difference, on the condition that policies of taxation and credit are shifted back, to foster private investment in a mode of energy-intensive, capital-intensive technological progress. Most of such margins of governmental expenditure will go into the areas of scientific research and the toolmaking industry. It is that relatively small shift in direction, which “leverages” the turn on a large scale. It is shifts in taxation and credit policies, which create the conditions in the private sector enabling that small margin of governmental “leveraging” to produce the needed effects in the economy as a whole.

The general objective is a 5 percent to 7 percent annual average increase in productivity of operatives over the coming 15 years.

We mean “productivity” of operatives as measured in terms of reference to a 1967 standard market basket per capita for producer and household goods. These are rates of growth comparable to those reached during the first half of the 1960s, under the combined impact of the “Kennedy investment tax-credit” and the technological stimulant of aerospace research and development (in other words, rates which are readily achievable by standards of past performance).

This gain in productivity will come principally from three sources:

(1) Increase in ratio of employment of operatives to total labor force: an increased percentage of labor force employed in producing physical output.

(2) Increases in energy intensity and capital intensity of production on the average.

(3) Higher capital turnover in the capital-goods sector of production, combined with higher rates of technological attrition in designs of capital goods.

Despite generous investment tax-credit rates for preferred classes of investment, the government tax-revenue base will be expanded at rates comparable to or exceeding those of the early 1960s. This will be the case, on the condition that favored capital gains treatment is limited to those resulting from useful inventions and physical improvements, and is cut back drastically in other categories of financial gain.

In summary of this point on governmental economic and monetary policies, the problem which appears too massive to be attacked with brute force, frontally, can be solved by a shrewd choice of flanking operations. The flank is that small but decisive aspect of the economic process which is most responsive to a technological breakout.

This is not some wild, untested innovation. It is nothing but the primary lesson of the past 500 years of European civilization, restated as a policy.

The Way a ‘Science Driver’ Program Transforms Economies as a Whole

The idea of a “science-driver” approach to rapid growth of entire economies was implicitly rooted in the reforms of Florence’s Cosimo de Medici, but was first given elaborated form by Leonardo da Vinci. Medici’s approach was introduced to France under King Louis XI. The impact of Leonardo’s work was reflected in the policies of Tudor England under Henry VII and, to some degree also, Henry VIII. The next major effort along these lines was successfully launched by France’s Jean-Baptiste Colbert. The principles of a “science-driver” approach to economic policy were defined more rigorously by Leibniz, as reflected in Treasury Secretary Hamilton’s 1791 “Report On the Subject of Manufactures.” The prime modern model of a “science-driver” approach is that initiated by Lazare Carnot during the period he served as France’s “organizer of victory,” 1793-1795. The further elaboration of Carnot’s approach to snatching victory from the jaws of imminent crushing and dismembering of France, was Carnot’s collaboration with and sponsorship of Gaspard Mange’s École Polytechnique over the interval 1794-1814.

The revival of the U.S. economy during the 1820s, was based directly on the Monroe administration’s adoption of the lessons of the 1793-1814 Carnot-Monge program as an enriching feature of a revived American System policy. The transformation of the United States into the world’s leading agro-industrial nation during 1861-1865, was based on this same policy. The development of 19th century Germany, from an economic backwater, into the world’s leading economic and scientific power, was based on introduction of the combined influence of the American System and the Carnot-Monge program, under the leading sponsorship of the Humboldts. The major “crash programs” of the 20th century, have been based on the institutional impact of these 19th century models.

NASA/SAIC Pat Rawlings

During Exploration Mission-1, planned by the Trump administration, NASA’s Orion spacecraft will venture over 60,000 km beyond the lunar orbit, farther than any crewed spacecraft has ever travelled.

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

In that light of history, the proposition before us amounts, in practice, to making the combined, complementary efforts of Strategic Defense Initiative and Moon-Mars mission-assignment, the “science-driver” program which will transform the United States into an economic power beyond the imagination of all but the tiniest handful of scientific workers today, and accomplish a good part of this during the coming 20 years.

In rule-of-thumb terms, what we are proposing is this. We make an inventory of those visible breakthroughs on the frontiers of scientific discovery today. We select a task which urgently needs to be done, and which will make use of each of the benefits of those areas of technological breakthrough. We orient the majority of the scientific and toolmaking establishment of our nation to such a task orientation over the period of the coming 40 to 50 years. In that way, we create manufactured objects which are of great use and economic payback rates in and of themselves, and which also refine and prove every kind of new technology being developed. By producing those specific manufactured objects, we enable our economy to apply those same technologies and their benefits directly to every part of the economy as a whole: We “copy” from advanced technologies developed in the project, for every useful application entrepreneurs might desire.

As a result, we increase the average productivity of the United States by two or more times during the remainder of this century, and more than 10 times over the coming 30 to 40 years. The amount we spend on this effort costs our economy an investment equivalent to a small fraction of our defense budget, something in the order of NASA and related aerospace spending of the 1960s. The payback during the medium term, from the “spillover” into the economy generally, pays back to our government in increased tax-revenue base, more than the investment.

Where does this bonanza of new wealth come from? It comes from the human brain.

Appendix: The Continuing Controversy Over the Principle of Least Action

Modern European science is divided chiefly into two factions: the currently popular view, which derives physics’ mathematics from an axiomatic arithmetic-algebra, as opposed to the standpoint of what English usage sometimes identifies as “continental science,” the latter the standpoint of Nicholas of Cusa, Leonardo da Vinci, Kepler, Leibniz, Monge, Gauss, et al. The latter dates approximately from Cusa’s 1440 De Docta lgnorantia, establishing a true “non-Euclidean,” or “constructive” geometry. The former, opposing method dates, essentially from the work of René Descartes, and is aptly described as either Cartesian or neo-Cartesian. All of the important, fundamental or approximately fundamental, differences among leading modern mathematical physicists are defined in a meaningful way, only by aid of reference to the opposition between the indicated two factions.

The Cartesian and neo-Cartesian views start from the action of (arithmetically) assumed point-masses acting in straight-line motion in otherwise “empty” Euclidean space, or in a kindred form of neo-Euclidean space, the latter sometimes misnamed “non-Euclidean.” The constructive geometric view starts from the standpoint referenced by Cusa in the cited work, that matter, space, and time are an indivisible substantiality.

The classic expression of the issue between the two factions, is the attack on Kepler by Newton and others, and the defense of Kepler’s approach by Leibniz, Gauss, et al. Kepler derived his three universal laws, and the planetary orbits, solely from constructive geometric principles, without considering the masses of the bodies, or the functions of the pairwise interaction of such bodies. Kepler’s hypothesis, employed to construct those laws, was based on the preceding work of Cusa, Luca Pacioli, and Leonardo, with special emphasis of Pacioli’s and Leonardo’s treatment of the significance of the Golden Section in that context. Kepler sought to demonstrate that our solar system had a specific kind of physical space-time geometry, independent of pairwise interactions among masses, and that this physical geometry imparted certain metrical characteristics to action in such space, characteristics relatively independent of pairwise actions within that space. Descartes, Newton, et al., rejected such notions of an efficient physical spacetime, demanding pairwise interaction among bodies in Euclidean empty space-time.

Karl Gauss’s demonstration for the case of the asteroid Pallas supplied crucial experimental proof that Kepler’s conception was correct, and the standpoint of Kepler’s critics was absurd. Gauss implicitly demystified the Golden Section’s role in Kepler’s physics, by basing physics upon a constructive geometry of multiply connected, conic, self-similar-spiral action: The Golden Section is the metrical characteristic of plane projections of conic self-similar-spiral action, and also of Gaussian hyperspherical space upon the “Euclidean” domain as a whole.

Beginning1850, Clausius, Kelvin, Helmholtz, Maxwell, et al. led a counterattack against Gauss, Weber, Weierstrass, and Riemann. Maxwell is most explicit on this point. He attempted to reconstruct the work of Gauss, Weber, and Riemann in electrodynamics, with the qualification of eliminating the idea of metrical characteristics of physical space-time as such, attempting to preserve the Cartesian idea of matter, space, and time. As Maxwell explained in a letter, the object of his work was to disregard “any geometries but our own.”

The areas of controversy so circumscribed, are at the heart of the “anomalies” of physics to date. These are the most important, most efficient of the practical problems of frontier physics today. The leading practical question associated with these challenges, in the choice of experimental domain in which the issues may be tested conclusively. The proper such domain is correlation of analogous anomalies of astrophysics and microphysics, with an eye to related phenomena in the domain of optical biophysics. Hence, a qualitative advance in astrophysical observations becomes indispensable to any general advance in physics.

The central feature of the controversy, and therefore of the related inquiries, is the notion of a Principle of Least Action. The modern history of this principle begins with Cusa’s “Maximum Minimum Principle,” continuing through the formulation of this as a Principle of Least Action by Leibniz, and the work of Gauss and his collaborators. Least Action is a notion inseparable from the idea of a metrical characteristic of physical space-time as such. Gauss-Riemann Least Action is, therefore, multiply connected self-similar-spiral action.

For example, Kepler’s planetary orbits are, axiomatically, relatively “force-free” pathways, Least Action pathways. These are determined, not by multibody interaction, but by the metrical characteristics of physical space-time as such. The speed of light, the quantum constant, the fine structure constant, are interrelated reflections of the same metrical characteristics of physical space-time as such.

The most interesting researches in plasma physics, astrophysics, and optical biophysics, are those which either converge upon or directly touch this area of issues. These define the frontier of the present physics, and will obviously, therefore, define the basis for the new physics beyond today’s. The Moon-Mars project’s contribution to coordinated astrophysics and microphysics research, will therefore be of decisive importance for the future history of mankind.

For the Exoneration of the Most Beautiful Soul in American History

by Helga Zepp-LaRouche

EIRNS/Stuart Lewis

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

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

The following is the introduction to the soon-to-be-published LaRouche PAC mass-circulation pamphlet calling for the exoneration of Lyndon LaRouche. It will then be translated into many other languages by groups and individuals furthering this effort across the globe.

There is no one in the history of the United States to my knowledge, for whom there is a greater discrepancy between the image crafted by the neo-liberal establishment and the so-called mainstream media, through decades of slanders and covert operations of all kinds, and the actual reality of the person himself, than Lyndon LaRouche. And that is saying a lot in the wake of the more than two-year Witch Hunt against President Trump. The reason why the complete exoneration of Lyndon LaRouche is synonymous with the fate of the United States, lies both in the threat which his opponents pose to the very existence of the U.S.A. as a republic, and thus for the entire world, and also in the implications of his ideas for America’s future survival.

Naturally, most people will think that I, as Lyndon LaRouche’s widow after 41 years of marriage, cannot be objective in my views about him. Nevertheless, I can say that Lyn was the most creative person of his age. There was virtually no important field of knowledge in which he could not measure up to or excel the best experts—be it in science, Classical music and poetry, history, or philosophy. He was one of the few economists worldwide who actually deserve that title, because he placed “physical economy,” as it had been developed by Leibniz, onto a scientific basis, founding it on the theories of Bernhard Riemann, Vladimir Vernadsky, and Albert Einstein. His analysis of the international monetarist financial system was based on this theory of physical economy, which enabled him to precisely forecast all the major economic disasters since the 1950s.

As early as 1975, he designed a new international credit system, the International Development Bank, which he elaborated over the years into a New Bretton Woods system. For the past 50 years he has taken the lead in drawing up comprehensive development and industrialization programs for five continents, which today resonate in the extension of the New Silk Road into the World Land-Bridge, which 126 nations have now joined. Beginning in 1976, he ran for U.S. President a total of eight times, seven of them as a Democrat. These were not isolated election campaigns, but rather a unified attempt to free not just the Presidency itself, but also the institution of the Presidency as the keystone of the American System fought for and won by the War of Independence, from control by the British Empire under which it had fallen, by and large, since the death of Franklin Roosevelt.

Elements of the apparatus, often misleadingly referred to as the “Deep State” (which in reality is the deep penetration of the American institutions by the British Empire’s secret services), already had LaRouche on their radar in the 1960s, due to his nonconformist way of thinking. But it was beginning in 1982 that this apparatus orchestrated a campaign against him, using the same method as the “Russiagate” operation against President Trump. In the eyes of this Anglophile establishment, LaRouche had crossed the Rubicon: Not only had he proposed strategic concepts to solve the Pershing-II SS20 Medium-Range Rocket Crisis, and the global financial crisis, but a number of nations’ heads of state were even beginning to implement these concepts.

Left: EIRNS/Philip Ulanowsky; right: EIRNS/Stuart Lewis

Left: Mexican President José López Portillo; right: India’s Prime Minister Indira Gandhi

White House

President Ronald Reagan declares LaRouche’s “mutually assured survival” official U.S. policy in his famous Strategic Defense Initiative address on March 23, 1983.

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

1982-1983 Shocks Begin

On September 1, 1982, when former Mexican President López Portillo implemented elements of LaRouche’s plan for the economic integration of Latin America, “Operation Juárez,” and introduced capital controls to stop capital flight out of the peso, absolute panic gripped Wall Street for 30 minutes. The fear was that Latin America would set off the “debt bomb,” thereby forcing a reorganization of debt payments. At the same time, with the Reagan Administration’s consent, LaRouche entered into back-channel negotiations with Moscow to explore the possibility of a new strategic agreement. His proposal to replace NATO’s concept of “mutually assured destruction” (MAD) with a joint neutralization of nuclear weapons and “mutually assured survival,” was essentially declared official U.S. policy by President Reagan one year later, on March 23, 1983. In the same period, LaRouche met with India’s Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, who intended to implement his proposed program for a 40-year development perspective for India.

The British imperial powers regarded these initiatives—the effort to implement a permanent peace policy with Russia, and the concept of overcoming the underdevelopment of the developing sector through concrete programs for industrialization—as existential threats to their system. On August 27, 1982, the British government sent a letter to the FBI demanding that an investigation of LaRouche be opened.

Even though this letter’s text is still classified, the response of then FBI Counterintelligence Chief James Nolan should remind us of the fraudulent nature of the allegations by Comey, Clapper, Brennan, and company against Trump. Nolan wrote that it is “entirely plausible” that the Soviets were using LaRouche to promote “Soviet foreign policy objectives.” From January 1983 onward, the aforementioned apparatus was thus set into motion against LaRouche by Henry Kissinger and his accomplices on the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, under the full protection and guidance of then Vice President George H.W. Bush. In 1986, after representatives of the LaRouche wing of the Democratic Party won the Democratic primary for Lieutenant Governor and Secretary of State in Illinois, and after the same Robert S. Mueller of later Trumpgate fame had taken over the persecution of LaRouche, the attacks escalated.

EIRNS/Stuart Lewis

In an effort to stop the growing influence of LaRouche’s ideas, on October 6, 1986, a combined taskforce of 400 FBI agents, state, and local police raided LaRouche’s offices and residence.

NSIPS/Stuart Lewis

Ramsey Clark, Attorney General (1967-69), joined the LaRouche case as co-counsel.

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

On October 6, 1986, four hundred FBI agents and security forces, with armored cars and helicopters, launched a raid on LaRouche’s offices and residence. One of the agents later admitted that the objective had been to kill LaRouche in the course of this assault, which was only prevented by an intervention from President Reagan’s White House. Former Attorney General Ramsey Clark later called the subsequent legal prosecution “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.” —Ramsey Clark

Clark also said:

In what was a complex and pervasive utilization of law enforcement, prosecution, media, and non-governmental organizations focused on destroying an enemy, this case must be number one. . . . 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.

The first trial in Boston collapsed because the defense was able to demonstrate the existence of a dirty operation concerning the government’s submission of evidence, after which the very same indictment was used (which is illegal) and reintroduced for “a railroad trial” in the infamous court in Alexandria, Virginia. At this “Freisler trial,”[fn_1] LaRouche was not even questioned, and for an alleged white-collar crime, was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment. This was accompanied by an unprecedented international slander campaign in the mainstream media, supported by private foundations, and used in order to stigmatize LaRouche throughout the entire trans-Atlantic world.

The enormity of this crime against LaRouche lies not only in its violation of the human rights of LaRouche and his associates by depriving them of their freedom—a great blot on the reputation of the United States to this day—but above all, in the fact that these actions prevented the population of the United States and other nations from grappling with LaRouche’s ideas without bias and pre-judgment. The implementation of his solutions was forestalled, and it is no exaggeration to state that as a direct result, millions of people have lost their lives, such as in the developing countries, which were unable to industrialize.

Since 1976, infrastructure development of the African continent has been among my husband’s most passionate, heartfelt objectives. A comprehensive plan for Africa was presented for the first time at a conference in Paris and appeared in book form in 1978. The development of Africa was always a core feature of his Presidential campaigns, and was the subject of numerous seminars in many European cities with representatives of African nations.

EIRNS/Philip Ulanowsky

Rev. Wade Watts, Executive Director of the Oklahoma State NAACP, addressing a Schiller Institute Conference in Andover, Massachusetts on January 31, 1998. Seated behind Mr. Watts is Fredrick Wills, Foreign Affairs Minister of Guyana (1978-1990).

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

Rev. Wade Watts

In 1992, as LaRouche, guiltless, sat in prison, Reverend Wade Watts, Executive Director of the Oklahoma State NAACP, wrote in his contribution to the Festschrift for LaRouche’s 70th birthday:

He said that if he became President of the United States, he would make the Sahara Desert in Africa bloom like a rose. He said he would build lakes to trap the water when it fell, he would cut canals out from Lake Chad into the Sahara Desert and start an irrigation program. He said he would also cut canals from the Nile River to the Sahara Desert, and they could raise food enough to feed 85% of the entire world. He said he would put tractors over there, combines, bulldozers, and modern farm equipment, and stop those Africans from having to use those old wooden plows and oxen. He said he would start a fertilizer program and rotate the crops and declare war on the pests and control them with a substance that is not harmful to man. He said that the average country that goes into Africa goes in not to help them but to exploit them. I wondered what kind of mind he had. He predicted things in the future that sometimes would come true like a clockwork.

On Sept. 8, 1997, in a contribution to his 75th birthday, Reverend Watts added:

You also spoke about Ethiopia and the capital Addis Ababa, and you said only it had paved roads, only 40 miles outside of the capital each way, north, south, east, west, and then it turned into dirt roads and cattle trails. And this was in a time where Ethiopia was in starvation.

Thanks to Chinese investments, the industrialization of Africa has now gotten seriously under way, but in the meantime, many children and adults have starved to death, and many refugees have died while attempting to reach Europe. This, too, goes onto the list of charges against LaRouche’s persecutors.

But thankfully, the imperial mafia has not been able to fully contain LaRouche’s ideas. Even though, over the long life granted to my husband, many of his co-fighters in many nations of the world have already passed away, nonetheless the number of people, both ordinary and influential, who have come into contact with him and his life’s work in the course of the last half century is extremely impressive. His ideas flowed through a multitude of channels: speakers and participants at numerous conferences on five continents, addressing various themes—from the need for a new world economic order, to the necessity of a renaissance of Classical Culture. Thousands of prominent people committed themselves to his release from prison and exoneration, including former heads of state and ministers, former chiefs of staff and union leaders, cardinals, bishops, scientists, and artists.

LaRouche’s Immortal Legacy

My husband has left behind an enormous body of work expressing not only his inspiring ideas for the next fifty years of humanity and beyond, but also his groundbreaking scientific, artistic, and philosophical concepts. Their publication will follow as quickly as possible. Yet his impact was, and still is, not through his writings alone, which he worked on with the passion of a genius even into old age, often writing sixty to eighty pages a day, ready for print, with all footnotes appended. He also had an enormous, immeasurable effect, not only in public speeches, but above all through personal discussions, whereby often only a single encounter sufficed to permanently affect the life of his discussion partner. Numerous contributions for his decennial birthday Festschriften over the last 30 years, and recently a flood of condolences on the occasion of his passing, reflect the deep effect that he had on many people throughout the world.

For the countless people who had the fortune to know him personally, he opened the way to their own creativity in a manner that only geniuses in history are capable of. “Thank you, you have changed my life,” is the message to him in eternity from thousands. Many have indicated that even though without him, they might have known Plato, Augustine, Nicholas of Cusa, Leibniz, Schiller, Bach, Beethoven, Kepler, Gauss, Einstein, or Vernadsky—to name but a few in a long tradition of scientific, philosophic, and artistic ideas which were LaRouche’s element—but that these thinkers, poets, and composers would never have become so dear to their hearts without him. Without LaRouche’s own in-depth understanding, far removed from any academic narrow-mindedness, and without his own philosophical dimension, they would never have come to know in the same way the essence of the thinking of these great men. It is not an exaggeration to say that LaRouche brought forth a revival and deepening of the understanding of the best traditions of Classical art and of Western civilization’s scientific heritage. He was, in the truest sense of the word, a Renaissance man.

In the 1960s, as the “Flower Power” movement assaulted a largely vulnerable population, he recognized that the rock-drug-sex counterculture would destroy society’s cognitive potential, and so in 1977 he publicized his warning that the drug epidemic would ruin the United States.

There is not enough space here to point out all the precious insights and discoveries that Lyndon LaRouche bestowed on his contemporaries and posterity. As a representative selection, we name here but a few.

EIRNS/Rachel Douglas

Among the many Russian scientists who welcomed LaRouche and his ideas was Pobisk Kuznetsov, who hosted LaRouche on his first visit to Moscow in 1994.

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

Precious Insights

The great Russian scientist Pobisk Kuznetsov proposed that in the tradition of great discoverers whose scientific breakthroughs were named after them—as for example the ampere, named after the French mathematician and physicist André-Marie Ampère, and the volt, after the Italian physicist Alessandro Volta—so should Potential Relative Population Density, the measure discovered by LaRouche for physical economy, be named the “La” in his honor.

Norbert Brainin, the founder and first violinist of the legendary Amadeus Quartet, told my husband that he not only read his works every day, but wrote to him in prison:

Somehow I cannot help thinking, in this connection, about the revolution in the history of musical composition wrought by Haydn and Mozart in the late 18th Century, and ponder the fact, that there was a time, when Haydn and Mozart were the only people in the world aware of this crucial development, the introduction of this rigorous principle of Motivführung (thematic development); the parallel of today being, that now there are also only two people aware of this revolutionary breakthrough, namely you and I. I think this augurs well for the future. With all my love. Yours, Norbert.

Lyndon LaRouche also had that precious quality of “truth-seeking” which Brainin so treasured as the prerequisite for genius—what Friedrich Schiller described as the “philosophical mind,” who, Schiller said, loves Truth more than his system. I know of no person to whom the following citation from Schiller’s writings on universal history applies more, than to Lyn:

How entirely differently the philosophical mind comports itself! As meticulously as the bread-fed scholar distinguishes his science from all others, the latter strives to extend the reach of his own, and to reestablish its bond with the others—reestablish, I say, for only the abstracting mind has set these boundaries, has sundered these sciences from one another. Where the bread-fed scholar severs, the philosophical mind unites. He early convinced himself, that everything is intertwined in the field of understanding as well as in the material world, and his zealous drive for harmony cannot be satisfied with fragments of the whole. All his efforts are directed toward the perfection of his knowledge; his noble impatience cannot rest until all of his conceptions have ordered themselves into an organic whole, until he stands at the center of his art, his science, and until from this position outward he surveys its expanse with a contented look.

New discoveries in the sphere of his activities, which cast the bread-fed scholar down, delight the philosophical mind. Perhaps they fill a gap which had still disfigured the growing whole of his conceptions, or they set the stone still missing in the edifice of his ideas, which then completes it. Even should these new discoveries leave it in ruins, a new chain of thoughts, a new natural phenomenon, a newly discovered law in the material world overthrow the entire edifice of his science, no matter: He has always loved truth more than his system, and he will gladly exchange the old, insufficient form for a new one, more beautiful. Indeed, if no blow from the outside shatters his edifice of ideas, he himself will be the first to tear it apart, discontented, to reestablish it more perfected. Through always new and more beautiful forms of thought, the philosophical mind strides forth to higher excellence, while the bread-fed scholar, in eternal stagnation of mind, guards over the barren monotony of his school-conceptions.

There is no fairer judge of the merits of others than the philosophical mind. Shrewd and imaginative enough to make use of every activity, he is also equitable enough to honor the creation of even the smallest contribution. All minds work for him—all minds work against the bread-fed scholar. The former knows how to transform everything around him, everything which happens and is thought, into his own possession—among thinking minds an intimate community of all goods of the mind is in effect; what is obtained in the kingdom of truth by one is won for all. The bread-fed scholar fences himself in against all his neighbors, whom he jealously begrudges light and sun, and keeps worried watch over the dilapidated barrier which but weakly defends him against victorious reason.

For everything the bread-fed scholar undertakes, he must borrow incentive and encouragement from others; the philosophical mind, in his diligence, finds in his subject matter itself his incentive and reward. How much more enthusiastically can he set about his work, how much more lively will his eagerness be, how much more tenacious his courage and his activity, because for him work rejuvenates itself through work. Even small things become grand under his creative hand, because he always has the grand objective, which they may serve, in view, while the bread-fed scholar sees even in great things only that which is petty. It is not what he does, but how he treats what he does, which distinguishes the philosophical mind. Wherever he may stand and work, he always stands at the center of the whole; and however far the object of his labors may draw him away from his other brothers, he is allied with them, and near them through a harmonically working understanding; he meets them where all enlightened minds find one another.

EIRNS/Stuart Lewis

Lyndon LaRouche and Norbert Brainin, founder and first violinist of the legendary Amadeus Quartet, in dialogue, as Helga Zepp-LaRouche looks on.

EIRNS

Lyndon LaRouche and Helga Zepp-LaRouche share an afternoon of great culture with contralto Gertrude Pitzinger on her 93rd birthday.

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

Music and Poetry

Of all of the many spheres of LaRouche’s intellectual activity, Classical music played a very special role. The wonderful contralto Gertrude Pitzinger once performed a rendition of Schumann’s “Er, der Herrlichste von allen” in Lyn’s honor during a visit to her apartment, which was her poetical and musical way of expressing her appreciation for him. The great tenor Carlo Bergonzi wrote to Lyn on the occasion of Lyn’s launching of the campaign to return to the “Verdi tuning,” which hundreds of the best singers of the world supported in the 1980s:

I was glad to meet you last November in Busseto, in the house where Giuseppe Verdi lived, for the presentation of “Canto e Diapason,” together with Piero Cappuccilli. Your initiative to go back to scientific tuning is very important for opera, and particular for young singers, which my Academy of Verdi Voices in Busseto is very concerned with.

EIRNS

Left to right: Piero Cappuccilli, Carlo Bergonzi, Liliana Gorini, Lyndon LaRouche.

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

LaRouche inspired many Classical choruses and orchestras in many countries, and encouraged them to continuously improve, and many young people discovered Classical music because of him. This was a characteristic, just as was his love for Classical poetry, which earned him the admiration of Boleslaw Barlog, the former superintendent of the Berlin Theater and friend of Wilhelm Furtwängler. Infinitely precious were the many Musikabende (musical evenings) and workshops with Sylvia Olden Lee, the first African-American vocal coach to be engaged by the Metropolitan Opera, and William Warfield, the American bass-baritone. From their collaboration with LaRouche came the inspiration for the current “Manhattan Project,” the founding of choruses across New York City with 1,500 singers. If the U.S. is to come out of its deep moral crisis, which has particularly gripped the younger generation, it is certainly this tradition which must be revived.

The list of things one could say about Lyndon LaRouche is endless. Perhaps the most important is that behind all his multifarious activities was an abiding, boundless love for mankind. He was absolutely selfless and infinitely generous when it came to fostering the creative potential in his fellow man. Today, many of his ideas and programs are about to become reality. His vision of a system of building the global economy so as to create a dignified life for all people on this planet, finds its echo today in China’s program for building the New Silk Road—which is not surprising when one considers Benjamin Franklin’s enthusiasm for Confucius, and the affinity between the Chinese economic model and Alexander Hamilton’s American System. Likewise, the Moon-Mars program recently announced by President Trump, is a clear reflection of the vision which Lyndon LaRouche outlined in his 1986 program, “The Woman on Mars: How a 40-Year Mission to Colonize Mars Would Transform the United States.”

Left: EIRNS/Stuart Lewis; right: EIRNS/Stuart Lewis

From the collaboration of bass-baritone William Warfield and acclaimed vocal coach and piano accompanist Sylvia Olden Lee, came the inspiration for the current “Manhattan Project”—the founding of choruses all across New York.

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

As I said at the beginning: There is no greater contrast than what we see between the statesman, economist, scientist, and person Lyndon LaRouche, and the image that the malicious minions of the British Empire paint and spread about him. And consequently, Schiller’s characterization from the Prologue of Wallenstein applies to Lyn as well: “Confused by the parties’ favor and hate, the image of his character has been obscured in history.” Schiller is here referring to the defamation of Wallenstein in the Habsburgs’ historiography.

Whether this image will be set aright, whether this unprecedented violation of human rights and of freedom will be punished, and whether the citizens of the United States and the rest of the world will have unbiased access to Lyndon LaRouche’s ideas: these, I am deeply convinced, are what will determine whether peace in the 21st century can be secured and sustained, and if the United States can once again become a beacon of hope for the entire world.

I appeal to you: Sign and distribute the petition for the complete exoneration of Lyndon LaRouche!

Helga Zepp-LaRouche

April 2019

EIRNS

John Sigerson conducting the Schiller Institute NYC Chorus.

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

[fn_1]. Roland Freisler (1893-1945) was Adolf Hitler’s appointee as Judge President of the German Reich’s “People’s Court,” and was infamous for his courtroom rants against “enemies of the state.” [back to text for fn_1]

III. Who Could Oppose the New Silk Road?

British Imperial Gangsters

Attack U.S.-China Cooperation

by Harley Schlanger

April 26—As the second Belt and Road Forum opened in Beijing on April 25, the defenders of the collapsing, London-directed trans-Atlantic system have stepped up their rhetorical assault and financial/military activities against the New Paradigm emerging around President Xi Jinping’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

While engaging in endless repetition of bogus charges, such as that of an “aggressive and escalating Chinese military threat,” “state-sponsored spying,” “imperial ambitions,” and “currency manipulation,” these war party operatives display the same lack of regard for truth that characterized their use of discredited charges of “Russian hacking” and “Trump collusion” to target President Donald Trump’s outreach to Russia and President Vladimir Putin. And just as their continuing assault against Trump and Putin has been revealed to be a regime-change coup organized by top elements of the British Empire—including their operatives in the Obama intelligence community and their Bush-league neocon allies—there is no evidence to back the claims they now are making against China’s President Xi Jinping and his BRI.

But these attack dogs are not concerned with truth, nor evidence. Instead, they wish to create a hostile environment against improved U.S.-Chinese relations, to prevent Trump from succeeding in bringing the United States into a coordinated relationship with the BRI, based on his oft-expressed friendship with Xi. This friendship has provided a basis for productive U.S.-Chinese cooperation in addressing the North Korean nuclear threat and has survived a rough patch of trade talks, in which the United States has imposed tariffs aimed at addressing the continued existence of its large trade deficit with China. The resolve of both leaders to succeed in these talks has resulted in progress, as a new round of trade negotiations begins April 30 in Beijing, with both sides saying they are nearing an agreement, which Trump has repeatedly tweeted will be “historic.”

Embassy of China in the U.S.

Ambassador Cui Tiankai

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

For their part, the Chinese have continued to express a desire for the United States to be partners in the BRI process. On the eve of the forum, China’s Ambassador to the U.S., Cui Tiankai, appealed to the U.S., to accept this challenge:

Imagine the potential of China and the United States, the world’s two largest, most vibrant economies, collaborating on the most ambitious development project in history. The scenario is no fantasy: China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which kicked off almost six years ago, will eventually connect a vast swath of the world, creating huge yields in economic activity, and wiring the world together as never before. However, the United States remains on the sidelines, and this has implications not only in terms of missed opportunities for growth in the U.S., but for the cause of global development which needs the ingenuity and the industry of the U.S.

End of Geopolitics

The unwillingness of the anti-China mob in the United States to respond positively to this challenge has nothing to do with fears that the Chinese are about to establish a new global empire, to threaten U.S. hegemony. Instead, it is an explicit rejection of an earlier offer made in August 2018 by President Xi, in discussing the goal of the BRI:

The Belt and Road is an initiative for economic cooperation, instead of a geopolitical alliance or military league, and it is an open and inclusive process rather than an exclusive or “China club.”

In language directly echoing the Schiller Institute’s Helga Zepp-LaRouche, who has defined the New Paradigm as one in which “geopolitics” has been eliminated, Xi is clear that he sees the threats against achieving peaceful cooperation as coming from the geopolitical doctrines developed at the end of the 19th century by British imperial strategist Halford Mackinder. A staunch defender of the British Empire, Mackinder argued that the greatest threat to continued British world domination would be the development of new trade routes over land, utilizing rail, which would diminish greatly the Empire’s dominant position in world trade, based on British sea power.

Mackinder’s doctrine defined the emergence of rail connections, such as the Trans-Siberian Railroad, or the Berlin-Baghdad line, as existential threats to the Empire. The precedent of Lincoln’s Transcontinental railroad, connecting the east and west coasts of the United States, which was seen as a danger by Britain’s imperial predators, was viewed as a positive precedent by leaders in Europe. To prevent this, the British orchestrated regional wars—such as the Russo-Japanese war and the 1912-13 Balkan Wars—and employed divide-and-rule tactics, to undermine the strategic cooperation between nations required to achieve peaceful commercial and cultural ties.

The geopolitical intervention by the Empire was directly responsible for both world wars of the twentieth century. Their heirs in today’s anti-Russia, anti-China policy gaggle are pushing a course leading toward a possible World War III—a horrific potential result, but one which does not at all deter them from provocative actions.

Left: Gage Skidmore; right: Gage Skidmore

Left: Sen. Marco Rubio; right: Sen. Ted Cruz

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

Will Russiagate Become Chinagate?

Not surprising is that many of those spouting nonsense about China are the same as those who previously were—and still are—using Russiagate to control or remove President Trump. A leading anti-Trump figure in the U.S. Senate, Republican Marco Rubio, is a point man against China, using his Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship to spread lies about China. That committee has just released a report, “Made in China 2025 and the Future of American Industry.”

In introducing the report, Rubio accuses China of “blatant industrial espionage and coercion,” adding that China intends to “steal and cheat their way to world dominance.” In an op-ed he wrote on April 25, he accused the United States of being “stunningly naive” in pursuit of a trade partnership—a direct attack on Trump’s effort to negotiate with China. He branded the BRI as part of “an unprecedented effort to supplant America’s role as the leading economic and military power,” and warned nations not to fall into China’s “debt trap.” Note that Rubio led the Republican attack on Trump’s negotiations with Russia’s Putin at Helsinki, and has defended the FBI from charges of engaging in a coup against Trump. Rubio has continuously proclaimed that he has seen “no evidence” that the FBI spied on the Trump campaign.

Rubio’s effort has bipartisan support, with Democratic Party presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren chiming in that China “has weaponized its economy” in its effort to overtake the United States. This line, which is heard from many Democrats with ties to Hillary Clinton, is coherent with the G.W. Bush era geopolitical dogma of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) which, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, held that the United States must remain the sole superpower in the world.

It is also reflected in the reconstitution of the Cold War era Committee on the Present Danger (CPD), this time focusing on China rather than Russia. CPD-China, as it is known, held an event in Washington on April 9, featuring Sen. Ted Cruz, a former Trump opponent, Newt Gingrich, an occasional spokesman for Trump, and Steve Bannon, who worked for the Trump campaign and presidency as a “strategist,” but was later fired. Cruz said that China is “the greatest long-term geopolitical risk that the U.S. faces,” while Gingrich accused the United States of “sleepwalking” while China asserts its new-found power. Bannon has a long history of anti-China posturing, claiming that we are in “an economic war with China,” one which “China foisted on us.”

DoS/Ron Przysucha

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo

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

Americans May Reject a New McCarthyism

The CPD-C was set up to “inform America about the existential threat” of China. While its personnel are mostly recycled neocons from the Bush era such as its vice-chair, Frank Gaffney, more concerning is the chorus of voices from within the Trump administration attacking China. These include Vice President Mike Pence, who has accused China of “economic aggression,” having an “unparalleled surveillance state,” and using “debt diplomacy” to expand its global influence; and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, whose mid-April tour of four nations of Latin America included harsh rhetoric and threats against those wishing to collaborate with China.

While in Chile, Pompeo claimed that China deploys its companies abroad to “enter the house, set traps, ignore the rules and propagate disorder.” Pence, Pompeo and special Venezuela envoy Elliott Abrams have taken the point in threatening both Russia and China over what they say are unwelcome intrusions into “our hemisphere,” referring especially to Russia’s and China’s support of the Nicholás Maduro government in Venezuela, which the British faction has targeted for regime change.

Will such absurdly provocative allegations and threats stop China from succeeding with its “win-win” economic and strategic diplomacy? As Mrs. LaRouche has emphasized, China’s efforts are “unstoppable” except by war, as they address needs in many nations for infrastructure and development aid that is not available elsewhere. This was evident in an April 20 article in Foreign Policy magazine, “Catching China by the Belt (and Road),” about the newly-established U.S. government agency, the International Development Finance Corp. (IDFC), as a plan to counter the BRI. The IDFC was created, the authors posit, to prevent the developing world from falling “under China’s sway”—to “help Washington push back against Beijing’s sweeping BRI.”

However, the article’s authors admit that the IDFC has offered only a paltry $60 billion in capital, compared to the more than $1 trillion already pledged by China. Further, the IDFC aid comes with the requirement that the IMF and World Bank be involved in overseeing the fund disbursement, saying this is necessary to prove that China is violating “well-established norms with its lending policies,” and to “draw attention to the corruption of the BRI.” Yet it is well known that one of the reasons so many nations have welcomed the BRI is their rejection of IMF/World Bank conditionalities, which have prevented real development from occurring while maintaining the neo-colonial lending practices favorable to the financial institutions controlled by the British Empire.

As Russiagate has crumbled, brought down by its blatant lies and increasingly transparent evidence that it was nothing but a coup run by a foreign power—Britain—to overturn the result of the 2016 election, “Chinagate” will ultimately fail. The potential benefits of peaceful cooperation between the United States and China—recognized by both Presidents Trump and Xi—in light of the great success of the BRI, are a preferred outcome to trade war and military confrontation. The media may hide from the American people the dynamic story of China’s BRI, but, if the truth becomes known, it is likely that Americans will reject the McCarthyite scaremongers, as they have in the past, and embrace the possibilities in a “win-win” relationship with China.

FBI Escalates McCarthyite Attacks on Chinese Scholars, Scientists, Students

by Mike Billington

RDCY

Wang Wen, Executive Dean of the Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies.

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

April 28—It is shocking, but not in the least surprising, that the same institutions that have carried out the failed coup against President Donald Trump on behalf of British intelligence—especially the FBI—are also directly engaged in a witch hunt against China, just as Trump is negotiating what he calls an “epic deal” between the United States and China. The scope of that attack has reached massive proportions over the past weeks, in an operation which can only be compared to the Truman-McCarthy witch hunt in the 1950s against imagined “subversives” working on behalf of “Godless communism” in Russia and China, supposedly aimed at “destroying the American way of life.”

While the lies against China’s historic Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) escalate around the world, the neoconservative and neoliberal forces in the Congress, and even within the Trump Administration, are demanding that nations in Asia, Africa, South America, Central America and the Caribbean reject the infrastructure development projects being offered by China’s BRI, and even break relations with China. Meanwhile, the FBI has launched a campaign to demonize China’s scholars, students and scientists within the United States.

Over the past weeks, the FBI has overseen the revocation of visas held by hundreds of Chinese scholars and analysts who have worked for many years with their American counterparts to build understanding and cooperation between the world’s two most powerful economies, while also forcing major institutions to fire Chinese scientists working in the United States, many of whom have made major contributions to progress in medical and other scientific fields of great value to the United States and to the world. The justifications for these hostile and provocative actions are as vacuous as the lies about “Russian collusion” with Trump, peddled by the same lying and leaking FBI that has served British intelligence in the coup attempt against the President, preventing him from carrying out his pledge to build friendly relations with Russia and China.

On April 21, the New York Times revealed that the FBI had been revoking the visas of dozens of Chinese scholars. One of those scholars, Wang Wen, the head of the Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies at Renmin University in Beijing, told the Global Times on April 19:

[Over 280 Chinese scholars] have had their U.S. visas canceled or obstructed, or have been harassed by FBI agents since 2018. . . . My visa was canceled after I attended a conference at the Carter Center in Atlanta. Before that, I went to the United States three to five times a year, normally for academic exchange events such as dialogues on trade and South China Sea issues between Chinese and U.S. think tanks. None of these are sensitive activities.

Wang Wen was given no reason for the revocation. He was told that he could re-apply for a single-visit visa (he had held a ten-year multiple-visit visa for many years), but when he went to the U.S. Embassy, he was told to provide travel records for the past 15 years, his family members’ information, social media accounts, bank accounts and some other personal information, “for no reason, again,” according to China Daily on April 24.

Wang Wen’s Chongyang Institute in Beijing had sponsored a symposium on Sept. 29, 2015, in which Helga Zepp-LaRouche presented the Chinese edition of the EIR Special Report, The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge. Wang Wen made introductory comments at the press conference, and his Institute distributed the Report to other institutions around the country.

Wang Wen also told Global Times that “it cannot be ruled out that [the revocation of visas] is a move by a U.S. government department to expand its authority in order to seize power.”

FBI Sees ‘Whole-of-Society’ Threat

Several other leading scholars also reported that they had been stopped and interviewed by the FBI during one of their recent visits to the United States, and despite cooperating fully, had had their visas revoked, with no justification offered. One scholar, Lü Xiang from the China-U.S. Department at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS), told Global Times:

It’s ludicrous to reject Chinese scholars from entering the United States, based on FBI concerns that they are related to China’s intelligence agency. The CASS is an independent academy which doesn’t report to, or follow the orders of, any intelligence department. The United States is unreasonably anxious now and blocks the regular interaction of personnel. This is very unreasonable. I hope this is an anomaly of a specific historical period rather than something very serious. I have talked to some U.S. scholar friends about the incident. They are even more shocked than I am and cannot understand the U.S. government’s move.

China’s Global Times, a Chinese Communist Party publication run by the People’s Daily editorialized on April 18:

The United States has gone too far. . . . Most Chinese scholars studying in the United States understand the United States best, support China and the United States to develop relations, and handle China-U.S. frictions rationally. . . . An increasing number of Chinese people think that the United States is losing its senses and even going mad.

This attack on intellectual exchanges with China was launched in its current form by FBI Director Christopher Wray. During an appearance before the Senate Intelligence Committee on February 13, 2018, Wray was asked by the extremist neoconservative Sen. Marco Rubio about supposed Chinese “infiltration” of U.S. colleges and universities, including both students and professors. Wray responded:

I think in this setting I would just say that the use of non-traditional collectors, especially in the academic setting, whether it’s professors, scientists, students, we see in almost every field office that the FBI has around the country. . . . They’re exploiting the very open research and development environment that we have, which we all revere, but they’re taking advantage of it. So, one of the things we’re trying to do is view the China threat as not just a “whole-of-government” threat but a “whole-of-society” threat on their end, and I think it’s going to take a whole-of-society response by us. So, it’s not just the intelligence community, but it’s raising awareness within our academic sector, within our private sector, as part of the defense.

Sen. Joe McCarthy and J. Edgar Hoover would be proud.

Chinese Medical Researchers Fired

Indeed, another area of the “whole-of-society” attack by the FBI on U.S.-China cooperation is the critically important cooperation in scientific research and development. The cooperation between former Congressman Frank Wolf and the FBI in targetting Chinese scientists working at NASA (including legislation to restrict cooperation with China in space programs) is notorious as a case of the United States shooting itself in the foot, as China now takes the lead in several crucial areas of space science.

The FBI has also launched a major attack on U.S.-China cooperation in medical research. On April 19, it was announced in the Houston Chronicle that three scientists at the MD Anderson Cancer Center had been fired, while at least another 20 were under investigation, accused by the FBI of stealing “American” research, and failure to report matters related to their ties to Chinese laboratories and research centers. MD Anderson is part of the Texas Medical Center of Houston (TMC), considered one of the best in the world. The Chinese government is in negotiations with the TMC to use its help and example in establishing a huge new medical center near Beijing. The Chronicle noted that over the past 18 months,

10 MD Anderson senior researchers or administrators of Chinese descent have retired, resigned or been replaced on administrative leave. Some purportedly left of their own accord, but supporters say a toxic climate and perception of racial profiling hastened their departure. Two of the researchers subsequently took positions at Chinese institutions.

In fact, scientists from China or of Chinese descent are under investigation by the FBI in literally thousands of research facilities across the country. The pressure on the clinics to investigate their scientific staff who have some connection to China began in 2015 under pressure from the Obama Administration. Dr. Francis Collins, the Director of the government’s National Institutes of Health (NIH), said this month that the FBI worked through the NIH to demand that the institutions turn over emails, computer and other work data of literally thousands of scientists, or face a cut in NIH funding. According to the Chronicle, Collins sent a letter to 10,000 U.S. institutions—repeat, 10,000 U.S. institutions—requesting that they help curb “unacceptable breaches of trust and confidentiality.” The letters were followed up with emails targeting specific individuals.

Public Domain

Qian Xuesen

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

For any comparison, one must go back to the infamous story of Qian Xuesen, the brilliant scientist at the Jet Propulsion Lab in California in the 1940s, who worked directly with the nation’s leading rocket scientists. Qian was falsely accused by the FBI in 1950 of being an agent of communist China. He was stripped of his security clearance (and thus could not work on behalf of the U.S. science programs), but was also forbidden to leave the country to return to China, for fear he would take his genius with him! When he was finally released after five years of house arrest, he returned to China, disgusted with the degrading treatment he had received from the U.S. police-state apparatus. Ironically, he went on to become the father of China’s missile and nuclear weapons programs.

A Communist Spy Under Every Bed

It is clear that the current FBI attacks have the same perverted premise, and will have a similar detrimental effect on U.S. medical (and other) research—indeed, on scientific progress for the human race as a whole.

CC/faungg

MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.

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

The current process began in August 2018, when the FBI convened a meeting of more than 100 leaders from the MD Anderson Cancer Center and about 20 other hospitals and health systems from across Texas. An FBI statement described the meeting as “the first step in a new initiative” which it planned to “replicate around the country.” The aim was to “establish, cultivate, and enhance public-private relationships to mitigate attempts by foreign adversaries to steal from our institutions for their benefit.” While China was not named at the time in the public statement, a follow-up meeting in Houston one month later featured Bill Priestap, the head of the Counterintelligence Division of the FBI, who made it clear that the target was China.

In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on December 12, 2018, Priestap, who was also at the center of the Russiagate scam against Russia and coup against President Trump, presented himself as an expert on Chinese culture and society—which would be laughable if that claim were not so dangerous. He said in part:

It is impossible to overstate the differences between the American and Chinese systems. China is an authoritarian, one-party state where the Chinese Communist Party reigns supreme. At the Chinese Communist Party’s direction, the Chinese government dominates every facet of Chinese life, through actions such as central economic planning, Internet and media censorship, and leveraging intrusive technologies.

The Chinese government is attempting to acquire or steal, not only the plans and intentions of the United States government, but also the ideas and innovations of the very people that make our economy so incredibly successful. . . .

They also aim to rewrite the rules to shape the world in their image, and they have already made progress on this front. The rules they write seek to guarantee the dominance of their businesses and root Chinese national power in the very fabric of an international system. . . .

Make no mistake: the Chinese government is proposing itself as an alternative model for the world, one without a democratic system of government, and it is seeking to undermine the free and open rules-based order we helped establish following World War II.

He apparently left out that China was fluoridating our water supplies to pollute our “precious bodily fluids”—unless that part was redacted.

What’s at Stake

It is crucial that Americans understand that this witch hunt against Chinese scholars and scientists is an attack not only on China, but on the United States as well, and indeed on the future of mankind. Scientific progress, like great art, is universal, contributing to the advancement of the human condition throughout the world, and for all time. Restricting and restraining such advances in human knowledge is, as it always has been, the centerpiece of Empire, of imperial domination, and is abhorrent to those who understand the American System developed by geniuses like Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton.[fn_1]

Look at the accomplishments of the MD Anderson Cancer Center, the initial target of this expanding FBI operation, which employs scientists from around the world, proudly collaborating to cure cancer. The Center published a list of the “shared research outputs” with hundreds of institutions around the world. In China, this included: Sun Yat Sen University, 2,342 shared research outputs; Fudan University, 1,387; Tianjin Medical University, 1,250; Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 559; Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, 408; and on and on—dozens of Chinese institutions working together with the Center for a common goal of improving the lives of citizens everywhere.

On Nov. 3, 2018, the Chinese Consul General in Houston, Li Qianmin, spoke at the annual meeting of the Alliance of North American Chinese Physicians in Houston. “China attaches great importance to health care in its people-centered development,” he said. “I believe overseas Chinese medical professionals can tap into your cultural background and achieve more in the cooperation of relevant areas.”

Was this a subversive attempt to steal U.S. secrets, to advance Chinese ambitions to undermine the western world? What sick, twisted mind would argue that?

Li continued: “The Chinese side was impressed by Houston’s strong development momentum and excellent investment environment. I believe that more and more Chinese companies will come and invest in Houston.”

The Mayor of Houston, Sylvester Turner, also attended the meeting, saying: “Of the doctors that we have, the Chinese doctors who are here in the city, we are proud of each and every one of them. We have some outstanding physicians that had happened to make the city stronger and happier.”

Mayor Turner led a delegation to China in 2017, where they met with Li Pumin, the secretary general of China’s National Development and Reform Commission. Li told the delegation, “China needs a medical center like the Texas Medical Center,” adding that China was already utilizing Houston’s medical institutions for help in meeting the growing health care requirements of its 1.3 billion people.[fn_2]

Striking Fear

The Chinese scientific and scholarly community, as well as the Chinese-American citizens of the United States, are extremely concerned about this return of Cold War hysteria. At a meeting held by the MD Anderson Cancer Center administrators with their employees on April 22, hoping to calm their fears of racial profiling and illegitimate surveillance, one researcher told MD Anderson President Peter Pisters, according to Science Magazine, that the employees were worried about an “increasingly xenophobic and isolationist” federal government, as seen in the actions of the FBI. “How can you,” the researcher asked, “and I plead, please—reassure all of our employees that we as an institution and academia are not being manipulated as part of a centralized policy to practice and to act in ways that are diametrically opposite to our core values?”

The “Committee of 100,” a national, non-partisan leadership organization of prominent Chinese Americans in business, government, academia, and the arts for the past 30 years, issued a statement on April 7 titled, “Committee of 100 Condemns Chinese American Racial Profiling,” which reads in part:

The members of the Committee of 100—all United States citizens—are compelled to stand up and speak out against the racial profiling that has become increasingly common in the United States, where Chinese Americans are being targeted as potential traitors, spies, and agents of foreign influence. . . . In the last few years, a few high American government officials, respected media outlets, and opinion leaders have stated or suggested that all Chinese persons in America should be suspected of wrongdoing. Overzealous criminal prosecutions in recent years of innocent individuals such as Sherry Chen and Xiaoxing Xi, like Wen Ho Lee before them, have embarrassingly fallen apart, while ruining lives for no reason. Such targeting of individuals based on their ethnic heritage or national origin violates our shared American ideals. It simply has to stop.

More than a year ago, the Director of the FBI testified before Congress to the effect that all Chinese students and researchers represented a “whole-of-society” threat to the American way of life. Although he had a chance to clarify, he chose to reiterate that he meant what he had said, that in his eyes, every person of Chinese descent should not be trusted. Likewise, some leading China watchers have expressed similar sentiments. They have warned that Chinese American organizations may be used by China’s government for illicit activities. The more sophisticated have disavowed any intent to stereotype. For Chinese Americans, however, the impact has already been chilling and negative: in scientific, business, political, academic and government circles, Chinese Americans are reporting being subject to greater scrutiny and discriminatory treatment in their work and daily lives. Racial profiling is wrong and un-American in our nation of democracy. It is imperative that those who are committed to the civil rights of all Americans disavow this kind of broad-brush racial stereotyping and fear-mongering.

We at EIR concur with this concern, and call on President Trump to include in his negotiations with President Xi Jinping, a pledge to put an end to the rogue operations of an out-of-control FBI leadership, as he has already pledged to do in regard to the Russiagate scam.

[fn_1]. Brian Lantz, “Is Science Subversive? The Potential of U.S.-China Collaboration in Science.” EIR, January 18, 2019. Pp. 36-45. https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2019/eirv46n03-20190118/36-45_4603.pdf [back to text for fn_1]

[fn_2]. Brian Lantz, “Houston’s Mayor Leads Trade Mission to China.” EIR, December 29, 2017. Pp. 19-21. https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2017/eirv44n52-20171229/19-21_4452.pdf [back to text for fn_2]