Executive Intelligence Review, Volume 46, Number 22, June 7, 2019

- Cover

- Masthead

- PDF edition Table of Contents — Volume 46, Number 22, June 7, 2019

- I. America Confronts Britain

- Coup Exposed, British Go for Coverup: Now Let’s Really Drain the Swamp by Barbara Boyd

- MI6’s Dearlove—Coup Leader vs. TrumpNow Leading the ‘Kill Huawei’ Drive

- PRESIDENT TRUMP TO UK Seven Questions and Demands— For President Trump to Give His British Hosts, If Any Intelligence Relationship Is to Continue

- II. LaRouche’s Fourth Law

- Revolutionary Space Propulsion Technologies Enable Mars Settlement by Michael James Carr

- FUSION ENERGY SYMPOSIUM ‘Commercial Fusion Not Soon Enough’ Says NJ State Sen. Joseph Pennacchio by Marsha Freeman and Suzanne Klebe

- MIDWEST RAINS CONTINUE World Corn and Soy Crop, U.S. National Economy at Risk by Marcia Merry Baker

- III. Lyndon LaRouche’s American System

- ZEPP-LAROUCHE WEBCAST Helga Zepp-LaRouche in China: East-West Cooperation Is the Only Way Forward

- In the Footsteps of John Quincy Adams My Strategy for the Americas by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. (November 30, 2000)

End the Rule of Empire: Lyndon LaRouche’s Mission and Ours

Editor-in-Chief and Founder:

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

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

Co-Editors: Robert Ingraham, Tony Papert

Technology: Marsha Freeman

Transcriptions: Katherine Notley

Ebooks: Richard Burden

Graphics: Alan Yue

Photos: Stuart Lewis

Circulation Manager: Stanley Ezrol

INTELLIGENCE DIRECTORS

Economics: Marcia Merry Baker, Paul Gallagher

History: Anton Chaitkin

Ibero-America: Dennis Small

United States: Debra Freeman

INTERNATIONAL BUREAUS

Berlin: Rainer Apel

Copenhagen: Tom Gillesberg

Lima: Sara Madueño

Melbourne: Robert Barwick

Mexico City: Gerardo Castilleja Chávez

New Delhi: Ramtanu Maitra

Paris: Christine Bierre

Stockholm: Ulf Sandmark

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

Washington, D.C.: William Jones

Wiesbaden: Göran Haglund

ON THE WEB

e-mail: eirns@larouchepub.com

www.larouchepub.com

www.executiveintelligencereview.com

www.larouchepub.com/eiw

Webmaster: John Sigerson

Assistant Webmaster: George Hollis

Editor, Arabic-language edition: Hussein Askary

EIR (ISSN 0273-6314) is published weekly

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

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

(571) 293-0935

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

Tel: 49-611-73650

Homepage: http://www.eir.de

e-mail: info@eir.de

Director: Georg Neudecker

Montreal, Canada: 514-461-1557

eir@eircanada.ca

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

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

Col. Agricultura C.P. 11360

Delegación M. Hidalgo, México D.F.

Tel. (5525) 5318-2301

eirmexico@gmail.com

Copyright: ©2019 EIR News Service. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission strictly prohibited.

Canada Post Publication Sales Agreement #40683579

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

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

EIR Contents

www.larouchepub.com — Volume 46, Number 22, June 7, 2019

Cover This Week

EIRNS/Stuart Lewis

The title of Lyndon LaRouche’s international webcast of June 27, 2009 was “Britain Delenda Est,” or “Britain Must Be Destroyed,” an echo of “Carthago delenda est,” or “Carthage must be destroyed,” from ancient history.

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

END THE RULE OF EMPIRE:

LYNDON LAROUCHE’S MISSION

AND OURS

I. AMERICA CONFRONTS BRITAIN

3 Coup Exposed, British Go for Coverup:

Now Let’s Really Drain the Swamp

by Barbara Boyd

7 MI6’s Dearlove—Coup Leader vs. Trump Now Leading the ‘Kill Huawei’ Drive

8 PRESIDENT TRUMP TO UK

Seven Questions and Demands—

For President Trump to Give his British Hosts,

If Any Intelligence Relationship Is to Continue

II. LAROUCHE’S FOURTH LAW

10 Revolutionary Space Propulsion Technologies Enable Mars Settlement

by Michael James Carr

19 COMMERCIAL FUSION SYMPOSIUM

‘The Development of Commercial Fusion Is Not Soon Enough’

by Marsha Freeman and Suzanne Klebe

26 MIDWEST RAINS CONTINUE

World Corn and Soy Crop, U.S. National Economy at Risk

by Marcia Merry Baker

III. LYNDON LAROUCHE’S AMERICAN SYSTEM

32 ZEPP-LAROUCHE WEBCAST

Helga Zepp-LaRouche in China: East-West Cooperation Is the Only Way Forward

43 IN THE FOOTSTEPS OF JOHN QUINCY ADAMS

My Strategy for the Americas

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

November 30, 2000

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. America Confronts Britain

Coup Exposed, British Go for Coverup:

Now Let’s Really Drain the Swamp

by Barbara Boyd

This is an edited version of remarks delivered by Barbara Boyd at the opening of the national LaRouche PAC Fireside Chat on May 30, 2019.

Before we get to Robert Mueller’s incitement to impeachment, I want to situate it in the context of the President’s visit to London. There is a line from Shakespeare’s Hamlet, which is pretty apropos of the present moment, as investigations begin in the United States of the perpetrators of the attempted coup d’état: “So full of artless jealousy is guilt, it spills itself in fearing to be spilt.”

Ahead of President Trump’s visit to London this weekend, a furious mobilization is underway to cover up the British instigation and conduct in the coup against Trump. The Queen has initiated a charm offensive, inviting Trump for this historic and fairly unprecedented state visit.

What’s clear is that the British are on a full-scale offensive to convince the President that it wasn’t them who did all of this nonsense. On May 19, the Daily Telegraph carried a story saying essentially that those of us in the UK knew about Christopher Steele’s dossier, before it was exposed in the United States, and we knew about it, because Charles Farr, then Chairman of the all-powerful British Joint Intelligence Committee and Head of the Joint Intelligence Organizations for the now deposed Prime Minister Theresa May, sat down with former MI6 intelligence officer Christopher Steele in November 2016, and we reviewed his “intelligence” about Russiagate in detail.

The only problem with the cover story is that the same very same British tabloids came damn near publishing something truthful about all of this back in 2017, when their confidence was high that the coup against Trump would succeed. On April 17, 2017, the Guardian bragged, that British intelligence had been working up a file on Trump and Russia since 2015 and colluded with Obama CIA Chief John Brennan in its development.

Charles Farr was a truly crazed intelligence mandarin in the image of Dr. Strangelove, and is, conveniently, dead and unavailable for further interrogation. He was known for his promotion of total surveillance and censorship regimes on the pretext of confronting terrorism in order to manipulate the public, and for an insane drive for regime change in Russia. Russiagate has proved to be a far more potent narrative for imposing the police state surveillance schemes Farr advocated, with people who formerly advocated free speech and civil liberties now signing up in droves for measures which will censor and crush all dissent.

If you remember what we wrote about the House of Lords report, UK Foreign Policy in a Shifting World Order, what they said was that these censorship regimes were critical to the survival of the British Empire, because Brexit and the election of Trump did not arise because of actual economic dislocation and what happened in the collapse of 2008. They claim that Brexit and the election of Trump were the product of average people having too much access to information that might be important to them.

A British Fairy Tale

Investigative journalist John Solomon reported last night, in The Hill newspaper, that all the way back on January 12, 2017, before Trump was inaugurated, a letter was hand-delivered to Trump’s then National Security Adviser Gen. Mike Flynn, from the then top head of British intelligence, Sir Mark Lyall Grant. In the letter, according to Solomon, Grant claimed that the British government had no confidence in the credibility of former MI6 spy Christopher Steele’s Russia collusion evidence. A pretty remarkable development, and a pretty remarkable explanation of the cover-up.

Left: Chatham House; right: UK Govt.

Left: Mark Lyall Grant; right: Robert Hannigan

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

In other words: “We’re admitting that we did wrong, but since you got elected, we’re saying that was very limited, and hey, we’re really on your side now.”

One glaring problem with Solomon’s article is that the alleged January 12, 2017 letter has not yet been found, and Gen. Flynn has stated that he has no recollection of it. Did it ever really exist? Or is this simply cover-your-ass propaganda, as the evidence of British leadership in the attempted coup against Donald Trump becomes overwhelming?

Around the same time that the letter to Flynn was supposedly delivered, Robert Hannigan, the head of GCHQ, suddenly and unexpectedly resigned. Most people believed that that was because Hannigan took the fall for what former CIA analyst Larry C. Johnson has said—and what LaRouche PAC has published—was a massive GCHQ surveillance campaign that began in 2015 and profiled and set up for dirty tricks every single Presidential candidate running in the 2016 election—Bernie Sanders, included—except for Hillary Clinton. Because the British were absolutely desperate that Hillary Clinton be elected President.

The problem with this reported British mea culpa about Steele and about GCHQ, is that it doesn’t fit with subsequent events or with the fact that the Steele dossier itself was only made public during this very same time period, when then FBI Director James Comey confronted the newly inaugurated President Trump with it in January of 2017, in a blackmail attempt; and when then Director of National Intelligence James Clapper arranged for its full national publication first on CNN and then on BuzzFeed. Senator John McCain was up to his ears in this aspect of the operation.

FBI

Former FBI Director James Comey.

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

The chronology claimed by Solomon—that the British had ceased all operations against Trump by January 2017—is contradicted by the previously mentioned British House of Lords Report of November 2018, which declares, as British strategic policy, that Donald Trump must not get a second term, while outlining that Britain’s relationship with America—and, I might add, that control of the relationships among U.S., China, Russia, and India—is the key to the continuing reign of the British empire in this world. These are, of course, the same four national powers cited by Lyndon LaRouche as the key to ending the City of London/Wall Street monetarist control of the world’s economies based on the system they have dominated since Franklin Roosevelt’s death—the system of globalism and maximum tensions between those same four powers who hold the keys to a new renaissance for all of humanity.

That was, and continues to be, LaRouche’s dream. He fought every aspect of the British effort to implement their system, and he proposed that if we can get these Four Powers together, we can have a new Renaissance for all humanity. Keeping these countries apart, exacerbating tensions among them, is the game-plan of geopolitics, it’s the game-plan of imperial control. And that’s why Donald Trump coming in and saying, “I’m going to blast all of these institutions from this period,” which he correctly identifies as “globalism,”—that’s why he represents a threat to the British Empire. That’s why the coup actually happened.

FBI

Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

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

Special Counsel Mueller’s Incitement

As everyone knows, Robert Mueller, the purported Oz behind the circle, made an appearance on Wednesday, May 29—and spoke. This was treated in the media like some kind of classical or religious event: “Thus Spoke God,” or “Thus Spoke Zarathustra,” or something else, from the way this thing was played. He spoke! He never speaks! “Please pause for a moment of solemnity, for he is going to deliver something very pregnant and poignant and immediate, and important, in terms of what is about to happen in our country.”

But that is not what happened. Instead, as we have always said, Mueller is not the strong silent one, the saint, the guy who walks with rectitude and obeys the law. He appeared on May 29 and spoke for only one reason: in order to incite a fairly crazed House of Representatives to undertake immediate impeachment proceedings against the President. They appear to be taking the bait, having nothing else to offer the American people. Already in the hours since Mueller spoke, two more Democratic Senators (and Presidential pre-candidates) and three more Democratic Congressmen have called for impeachment.

Guilt ‘spills itself for fear of being spilt’

The problem for Mueller, as well as for his cultish followers, is that even as he was delivering his lies on Wednesday, the analysis of Bill Binney, the former Technical Director of the National Security Agency, that there never was a Russian hack of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), is making its way around as an underground phenomenon throughout the United States. Binney is calling Mueller out, and calling the intelligence community out, on the fact that the entire premise of Russiagate was a myth, a propaganda ploy. It did not happen. There was no Russian hack of the DNC that resulted in publications by WikiLeaks. That story is all bogus nonsense.

The evidence compiled by Binney has also become officially part of a motion in Roger Stone’s criminal defense, and hopefully we’ll be hearing more about that over the next days.

C-SPAN

Roger Stone

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

What Roger Stone is seeking to do, is to use Binney’s analysis that the hack never happened in the way that Mueller has portrayed it, to get all of the evidence in his case tossed, because the search warrants in that case depend upon Mueller analysis of the hack! He is also asking that the entire, unredacted CrowdStrike analysis of the DNC servers be produced to the defense in that case.

That particular aspect of things should be very interesting, because it appears that Mueller relied for his analysis of the hack on the forensics used by the entity called CrowdStrike, which is employed by the Democratic National Committee, and also is tied to the Digital Forensics Research Lab of the Atlantic Council, a British-controlled entity, with a history of false claims about Russian cyberattacks, including in Ukraine.

So Mueller spent a lot of time in his brief address, reiterating that the Russians did horrible things in our election, and that that was the thing most important to emphasize and to get across to the American people, and to continue to get across to the Congress, and everybody else.

Unfortunately for Mueller and his minions, the coup-plotters are themselves now being investigated, by competent and legally empowered investigators, as Attorney General William Barr and several dedicated, thinking congressmen start their quest to figure out how this coup came about.

Also, yesterday, on Fox News’ Tucker Carlson nightly television broadcast, the second aspect of Mueller’s silly claims about Russian interference in the elections came under attack by Aaron Maté, who’s done a substantial analysis of these claims about the Internet Research Agency (IRA) and Russia’s social media allegedly turning American minds into Putin advocates overnight, through Facebook ads. Maté pointed out that this Russian campaign, if you actually look at it, was extremely small-time and juvenile in content. Most of it had nothing to do with the election, didn’t even mention the candidates, and occurred after the elections, with a total expenditure of some $64,000, which Mueller has made such a huge big deal about.

So, Mueller’s reacting directly to the fact that we are having success here, in breaking this story about the central premise of the coup into the media and into the public domain. It’s not an accident, that also over the past 48 hours, the British press, namely, the Telegraph, has directly attacked Larry Johnson for his exposé of the British role in the coup, and of the surveillance conducted of all the Presidential candidates except Hillary Clinton, and his claims about British GCHQ surveillance of Donald Trump.

So, on that aspect of Mueller’s appearance and where we sit, I come back to the famous phrase from Hamlet: “So full of artless jealousy is guilt, it spills itself in fearing to be spilt.”

Moving Forward

In the March 31, 2017 issue of EIR we published the first exposé of the coup against Trump as a British operation, as an information warfare operation growing out of the coup in Ukraine, and the British desire to fulminate regime change in Russia itself, a proposition which could lead to the extinction of the human race. We called that article “The Insurrection Against the President, and Its British Controllers—Or, Who Really Is George Soros, Anyway?”

The LaRouche PAC followed that up in September of 2017 with our exposé of Robert Mueller, calling him an “Amoral assassin who would do his job if the American people let him.” We showed you Mueller’s ignoble involvement in the atrocity that was the prosecution of Lyndon LaRouche and his numerous cover-ups conducted to protect Anglo-American intelligence operations, most specifically the 9/11 attacks, but other things, too, like BNL (Banca Nazionale del Lavoro) and BCCI (Bank of Credit and Commerce International). Everything this guy has ever done, has been on behalf of the Anglo-American intelligence apparatus.

Our analysis of the British origins of the coup, and of Mueller’s character have been fully borne out. And Lyndon LaRouche’s continued emphasis on the British Empire, not the British people, as the current bane of humanity, has been fully vindicated.

All Mueller did on Wednesday, was once again, to show his true character: He called essentially for impeachment of the President. He was brought in to give them the boost they needed as this thing was going off the rails.

Now, the emphasis we have to have, is the emphasis which got us here in the first place: We have to keep asking people: What are the reasons why this happened? What is the strategic situation in which this is occurring? Why did Donald Trump represent a threat? Why did Lyndon LaRouche represent a threat?

On June 3, President Trump will go to London armed with a list of questions from Rep. Devin Nunes (R.-Calif.), to press the British for answers on how they plotted to overthrow an American President.[fn_1] Before this coming weekend is out, we will compose our own series of questions for the President to ask the British. [Published in this issue of EIR.] We’re going to ask him to have them give him a full briefing of their role in the operation in Ukraine and the reasons for it.

We’re asking that the British government disclose to him the purpose of the Integrity Initiative, an organization which is working right now out of our State Department to ensure that the President is not elected again in 2020. And we’re asking similar questions along those lines, in order to get a full recognition by the President that the overall impact of this operation was to sabotage any possibility of the Four Power alliance LaRouche outlined as creating the basis to overturn this imperial entity once and for all.

Additionally, we are highlighting Lyndon LaRouche’s emphasis on the difference between the American System and the British imperial or Empire system as a necessary contribution to the discussion of the motives for the coup as we head into the Memorial Tribute for Lyndon LaRouche next week. That is because our role in stopping this coup boils down to this: bringing LaRouche to bear on the present situation by again emphasizing his four laws for sustained economic recovery and exposing the tentacles of the opposing globalist imperial system. The President is determined to expose and uproot those who have conducted the coup against him. Doing that means that the American people have to fully understand why the British and their American friends tried to take out the President.

Would you be surprised to learn, in this context, that the person most responsible for the attacks on Huawei in London is the same Sir Richard Dearlove, the former head of MI6 who led the coup against Trump?

[fn_1]. 1. See EIR Vol. 46, No. 21 (May 31, 2019), p. 19 for the full text of Nunes’ letter to Trump. [back to text for fn_1]

MI6’s Dearlove—Coup Leader vs. Trump

Now Leading the ‘Kill Huawei’ Drive

May 31—Former head of the British Secret Intelligence Service (MI6), Sir Richard Dearlove, now known to have launched the “Steele Dossier” and the “Stop Trump” drive from British intelligence more than three years ago, is leading the attack on China and Huawei Corp.

Sir Richard also had a major hand in starting the disastrous Iraq War in 2003. He gave the UK’s then Prime Minister Tony Blair the infamous “Downing Street Memorandum,”—known ever since in London as “the dodgy dossier”—used to justify that war.

For that, and for his leading role in trying to instigate a coup against President Trump, Dearlove is at the head of the list of those that Trump should demand be brought to account, in his state visit to Britain this week.

Dearlove’s intelligence circles at the neoconservative Henry Jackson Society were used in the “Get Trump” operation. Now the Henry Jackson Society has released an 80-page “study” through its Asia Studies Centre, on May 16, titled “Defending Our Data: Huawei, 5G and the Five Eyes.”

The foreword was written by Sir Richard. He begins: “The greater part of my thirty-eight-year career in the British Intelligence and Security Community was defined by meeting the threat to the UK’s national security from Communist states.” He asserts that the Communist State of the People’s Republic of China uses Huawei “not only to control its own population (to an extreme and growing degree) but it also conducts remotely aggressive intelligence gathering operations on a global scale.” His evidence: That’s what communists do.

Dearlove demands that the UK must “black ball Huawei” and not worry about offending China or the cost to the UK.

The London Daily Mail on May 11 reported that Sir Richard rarely gives interviews, but he granted the newspaper an interview to escalate the campaign against Huawei and China, and to promote the Henry Jackson Society “study.” Dr. Strangelove-like, he argued that letting Huawei anywhere near the UK’s planned 5G network, could mean “you lose control of your robots . . . to a foreign power!” If “the Communist state” ordered Huawei to insert secret chips into 5G infrastructure, it would do so, and they could be “triggered” to disrupt British technology completely, Dearlove claimed.

This is the man who once had Tony Blair claiming Iraqi nuclear-armed ICBMs were going to be launched against England within 45 minutes of a command from Saddam Hussein.

PRESIDENT TRUMP TO UK

Seven Questions and Demands—

For President Trump to Give His British Hosts,

If Any Intelligence Relationship Is to Continue

June 2—President Trump is leaving for his state visit to Britain Sunday night, June 2. Here are the “Seven Questions and Demands” Donald Trump should be making if the intelligence relationship between the United States and Britain is to continue. The British, not the Russians, intervened directly in the 2016 U.S. presidential election to defeat Donald Trump, and their House of Lords has declared that it will ensure the President’s defeat in the 2020 elections. President Trump can blow all this up by asking and demanding the following:

1. There are two sources for determining whether the Russian GRU hacked the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Campaign Chairman John Podesta, and provided the files to WikiLeaks for publication. One is the NSA/GCHQ, which would have the trace routes of the internet packets of such an operation. The other is Julian Assange and his colleagues at WikiLeaks.

Concerning the alleged Russian hacking operation, GCHQ must turn over any trace route information it has in its possession, either as a result of its own activities or the activities of any Five Eyes participant, to U.S. Attorney General William Barr.

GCHQ or other British intelligence channels must provide to U.S. Attorney General Barr any other evidence it has indicating that the Russian GRU hacked the DNC and provided the files to WikiLeaks for publication, or any evidence showing that the Russian hack, as described in the 2017 U.S. Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), or the Report of the Special Counsel, did not occur as described in that Assessment or Report.

According to news reports, Julian Assange is gravely ill in the British prison system, and the United Nations special rapporteur on torture, Nils Melzer, has determined that he has been tortured. I am concerned that he will be killed while in British custody because of what he knows. I demand that you undertake immediately to provide him the best medical care, ensure his physical and mental safety, and report those steps publicly and to me.

2. It has been claimed that GCHQ was surveilling my campaign as far back as 2015. It has also been claimed that this surveillance involved every 2016 Presidential candidate other than Hillary Clinton, and that this was reported as liaison reporting. GCHQ and/or other British intelligence agencies must provide Attorney General Barr with all documents, files, and reports concerning surveillance of any U.S. 2016 presidential candidate or anyone associated with any 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, as well as information on who originated the surveillance and the roles of any U.S. person in such surveillance operations.

3. The British government must provide U.S. Attorney General Barr with specifics of all relationships of, and among, Hakluyt, Christopher Steele, Richard Dearlove, Sir Andrew Wood, Joseph Mifsud, Stefan Halper, Orbis Business Intelligence, Fusion GPS, and the Integrity Initiative to the British or Australian governments, or to NATO, and all information it has concerning the “sources” of Christopher Steele’s “dossier” on the 2016 Trump Campaign.

4. The British government must provide U.S. Attorney General Barr with any reports delivered by Robert Hannigan of GCHQ to U.S. officials during the summer of 2016 concerning individuals associated with my campaign, myself or my family, inclusive of information concerning who ordered any of these reports be produced and to whom they were produced.

5. The British government must provide U.S. Attorney General Barr with all of its files and communications with United States or other intelligence or law enforcement agencies, U.S. Congressmen or Senators, the U.S. State Department, or individuals associated with the 2016 Hillary Clinton Presidential Campaign, concerning Donald Trump, the 2016 Trump Campaign, George Papadopoulos, Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Carter Page, or other individuals associated with my campaign, including Steve Bannon.

6. The British government must provide U.S. Attorney General Barr with a report concerning who the British government and its intelligence agencies or intelligence surrogates worked with in the United States, in connection with the following events, and all records of the British government concerning collaboration with those individuals:

a. The 2014 change of government and Maidan protests in Ukraine

b. The 2018 Sergei Skripal events in Britain

c. Alleged chemical attacks by the Bashar al-Assad government in Syria.

7. The December 2018 House of Lords report, UK Foreign Policy in a Shifting World Order, more or less explicitly calls for my electoral defeat in 2020.

The British government must provide U.S. Attorney General William Barr with a report concerning any effort to implement this strategy, including any communications with any U.S. individual, the U.S. State Department or other U.S. government or private entities, such as the Atlantic Council, or any U.S. political party.

Separately, the British government must provide a full report on any activities of the Integrity Initiative or any other British government supported propaganda, public relations, or information management agency in the United States.

II. LaRouche’s Fourth Law

Revolutionary Space Propulsion Technologies Enable Mars Settlement

by Michael James Carr

NASA

To the Moon, Mars, and beyond. Scenes from NASA video “We Go Together.”

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

June 1—Perhaps you did not hear about it, amid the daily din of fakery and foolery. President Trump has directed NASA to reorganize humanity around the mission of spreading civilization to the planet Mars and beyond. To make the point that this is not a rhetorical flourish, the President took the opportunity of the collapse of the Mueller coup plot, to announce that the first stage of this process will be accelerated to be accomplished by 2024: the landing of people on the Lunar surface. A permanent human presence on the Moon will be inaugurated by 2028. Human exploration of Mars will follow, based upon the technical capabilities developed in the process of Lunar development.

First, reorganization entails flipping NASA and America “right side up” after 50 years of imperial looting. For 50 years the rigged debate and accompanying physical economy policies have cycled back and forth between radical policies of contraction, austerity, financial takeover schemes, “inner space,” financial bubbles and schemes, counterculture, etc. on the one side; and on the other side, attempts to maintain a status quo or “normalcy”—whatever that means.

In this situation, American science, technology, engineering and production was left in a miserable state. The quintessential American inclination to play at building and testing new ideas was suppressed. Factories were shut down wholesale. Children were told to study finance or law. Engineering and science schools were left to train millions of foreign students. The primary American voice of scientific and technological progress, Lyndon LaRouche (along with Krafft Ehricke, a primary designer and advocate of the Moon-Mars Mission) and his Fusion Energy Foundation, were jailed and shut down at imperial decree. We could go on, but that should be enough to give you the flavor.

To again fly “right side up” means not just giving a larger budget to NASA, but reorganizing NASA and the entire economy of the United States. The entire Four Laws of LaRouche must be implemented in order to bring the long-suppressed science and engineering talents out from their foxholes back into a dominant role in the economy and society. We quickly review those Four Laws here:

1. Return to Glass-Steagall separation of legitimate banking from speculation in order to stop the speculative looting of the productive powers of the nation.

2. Return to National Banking.

3. Establish a credit system which makes credit broadly available to designated national projects (such as the Moon-Mars program), productive enterprises, agriculture and infrastructure.

4. Provide federal funding for the accelerated development of fusion power subsumed within the development of a Moon-Mars colonization program.

NASA/JPL/Corby Waste

Chemical rocket propulsion and a months-long ballistic trajectory are acceptable for a robotic probe to Mars. Manned missions require continuously powered acceleration to reduce travel time to days, not months. Shown is an artist’s concept of an unmanned Phoenix probe landing on Mars.

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

Secondly, spreading civilization to Mars entails integrating the scientific and engineering capabilities of the entire world into this project—emphatically including the participation of China, Russia, India, Japan, Europe, and many more emerging space programs—as well as private enterprises and universities. This project is not a project which can be accomplished with the existing technical know-how. It requires the revolutionary insights that pop up from unexpected people and places. The good thing about having over 7 billion people involved (a much-maligned number!) is that we have a rapidly growing pool of smart people! Remember, it is the spread of intelligence which has been the imperial target for destruction since long before Socrates was sentenced to death.

So far, President Trump and NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine have done an excellent job of redirecting NASA and America towards this Moon-Mars development mission. But this is still a controversial project. The wailing and gnashing of teeth are heard everywhere! This mission will entail the participation of all smart people—including you—in the final destruction of the British Empire and the realization of the God-given destiny of our civilization.

Because of the magnitude of the transformation required, the President has set a five-year timeline for the accomplishment of the first step, putting people once again on the Lunar surface. Necessarily, this has forced a focus upon organizing the means for the immediate accomplishment of that objective. This means that all technologies, equipment, facilities required to meet that short-term goal are being put on the front burner. It means that a focus is being put upon the existing technologies which will be used to meet the 2024 goal.

However, those technologies do not include many of the cutting-edge technologies which will be required to actually turn a Lunar installation into a Lunar settlement—not to mention the even more stringent requirements for exploring and settling Mars.

NASA just granted the contract to build the first section of the Lunar Gateway orbiting transfer station to Maxar and signed up 6 companies to make proposals for the 3 major manned Lunar lander components. NASA has put forward a supplemental budget request for an additional $1.6 billion funding for the next fiscal year as this program ramps up.

India plans to launch its first unmanned Lunar lander in July. (Remember that it was India’s Chandrayaan-1 orbiter which discovered massive quantities of water ice on the Moon).

Meanwhile the NASA/Boeing Starliner is being prepared for its first unmanned test launch to the ISS this summer, while the scheduled abort test of the NASA/SpaceX Dragon II project is delayed, pending determination and rectification of the cause of a vehicle loss due to an explosion in between tests at the Kennedy Space Center.

With that in mind, we spend here some time discussing the biggest technical problem faced by the Moon-Mars program: transportation and propulsion.

We can probably get much of what we will need, such as food, water, fuel and some metals from work we perform upon the Lunar and later Martian regolith, but the equipment, buildings, power, infrastructure, will entail huge tonnages of imports from Earth.

Think of this as you would think about developing an area of virtually barren countryside on Earth. You will need earthmoving (lunar regolith moving) equipment, mining equipment, materials processing equipment, power installations, piping, cabling, etc. Even with super materials and super equipment, the requirements quickly move into the thousands and then millions of tons and beyond of equipment. What can we do?

We will probably always use chemical rockets for various aspects of activities in space; chemical rockets have some very impressive capabilities—such as the capability to quickly produce a very large impulse. However it is that precise capability which is also this technology’s major failing. Chemical rockets quickly burn themselves out.

The problem reminds one of the case of the Hare and the Tortoise—or perhaps it might remind you of the habits of your cat. To send robotic probes through deep space with a chemical rocket jolt followed by a months-long ballistic trajectory is an acceptable plan. To send people into deep space in that manner is not acceptable. Secondarily, while much has been accomplished by miniaturization in satellites and robotic probes, we cannot miniaturize people and their life requirements. If we are to settle the Moon and Mars, we shall require revolutionary improvements in propulsion technologies.

In this article we begin not with the short hops from planet to orbit—but with the really-long-distance questions.

Instead of a heavy burst of thrust followed by months of “weightless” ballistic trajectory to Mars, we really need continuously powered acceleration followed by continuously powered deceleration. The ideal would be continuous acceleration at 1g (equivalent to Earth’s gravity) followed by continuous deceleration at 1g. Such a capability would reduce travel time to Mars from months to days and allow passengers to live as if on Earth, without bone mass loss and other deleterious microgravity effects upon health. Also the increased speed helps to reduce damage to tissue caused by the extreme radiation environment of deep space.

Princeton Satellite Systems

See the Princeton Satellite Systems short video explaining how the Direct Fusion Drive works: https://youtu.be/hggqvB5I95I.

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

Direct Fusion Drive

Fusion power, which has roughly a million times the energy output per reaction in comparison to chemical rocket reactions, has the potential to meet this ideal capability. An early model of a magnetic confinement/controlled fusion rocket is in development by the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL) and Princeton Satellite Systems (PSS)—assisted with small-scale NASA grants. This first step towards the 1g continuous acceleration goal is a rocket engine called Direct Fusion Drive (DFD) and is based on Princeton’s fifth-generation, field-reversed machine, the Princeton Field-Reversed Configuration (PFRC)-2 reactor. The reactor employs a unique “odd-parity” radio frequency (RF) heating method, producing a steady-state, closed-field configuration with a highly efficient current drive. The PFRC-2 experimental machine is currently in operation at PPPL.

Princeton Satellite Systems

The Princeton Field Reversed Configuration-2 Reactor, showing a pulse generated during testing of the reactor core.

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

The plan is for the PFRC-2 to demonstrate fusion by the end of 2020. An actual DFD rocket engine would provide about 10 megawatts of propulsion power (somewhere in the range of 50 to 100 newtons, or 10 to 20 pounds of continuous rocket thrust) via emission of fusion-produced ions from an electromagnetic rocket nozzle. Production of electricity is accomplished using a Brayton Cycle generator in the equipment coolant loop. A typical ion exiting the electromagnetic nozzle would exit at a speed of about 100 km/second, while an actual fusion product would leave at 25,000 km/second. Contrast that to chemical rocket combustion products leaving the engine at around 5 km/second.

Because this design burns deuterium (2H) and helium-3 (3He) as fuel—allowing all the reaction products to be magnetically directed out as thrust—this design does not suffer from troublesome stray neutrons which can induce secondary radioactive decay in adjacent machinery (as is the case in other fission or fusion systems). And while helium-3 is rare on Earth, it is abundant in the Lunar regolith—making it one of the Moon settlement’s first high-value export products.

Besides propulsion, the DFD would also produce an abundant, continuous supply of electric power for powering the other systems on board the spacecraft. This is one of the unique features of this design.

Even though this project is probably the most promising fusion rocket concept/project in the world, it has only received some tiny NASA study grants, but would require on the order of $50 million to build the next research machine and even more to build a prototype rocket engine. America is filled with people, universities and laboratories with great concepts, but no ability to bring concepts into reality. For example, the PFRC-2 was built using many recycled parts from earlier experimental devices.

America must reestablish a credit system and a real long-term research and development program. We cannot allow billionaires, fund managers and venture capitalists to decide which projects with the shortest pathways to fruition will be funded to development. The DFD would require a timeline of 7 to 15 years for full development. NASA needs sufficient funding to be able to fully fund development of this project, so that a working prototype could be running in about 7 years.

Ion Propulsion

However, even without undergoing fusion, a plasma’s unique electromagnetic properties allow it to be controlled and accelerated by magnetic fields. Disregarding for the moment the global self-organizing field characteristics of plasmas (such as is used in the Direct Fusion Drive rocket discussed above), for our immediate purposes we will be discussing a particular plasma situation in which a stream of atomic nuclei is ionized by removing at least one electron per typical nucleus in the stream. In this case, the positively charged ions (nuclei) can be accelerated towards a negatively charged grid, which sucks the stream through and expels it out the nozzle. (The stream of positively charged nuclei is then reattached to the previously detached electrons, so that the exhaust stream becomes neutralized and does not curve back along magnetic field lines to impinge upon the spacecraft.)

With such early systems of ion propulsion (or electric propulsion), a stream of ions can be expelled at roughly 20 times (or more) the typical exhaust velocity of chemical rocket exhaust. Such early systems have demonstrated Specific Impulse (the measure of thrust per unit of propellant) values of roughly 10 times those of chemical rockets.

However, these early designs have played the tortoise to the hare of chemical rockets. Early ion thrusters produced thrust equivalent to the pressure a piece of paper would exert upon your hand holding it up against the pull of Earth’s gravity. But unlike chemical rockets which could burn for a few minutes, the ion thrusters could continue to accelerate continuously over months and years slowly reaching incredible speeds with tiny propellant expenditure.

U. Mich. Plasmadynamics & Electric Propulsion Laboratory

The X3 Hall-effect ion thruster in which xenon gas is accelerated by an electric field. Shown here are its 3 concentric emission channels running at a low 30 kilowatts of power.

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

X3 Hall-Effect Thruster

Probably the most advanced electric propulsion system currently undergoing testing and development is the University of Michigan Plasmadynamics & Electric Propulsion Laboratory’s X3 Hall-effect Thruster which has achieved a record thrust of 5.4 newtons (1.2 pounds) on 102 kilowatts of input. The first use of electric propulsion in human spaceflight operations will be for propulsion and Lunar orbital station-keeping of the Lunar Gateway. The Gateway will use Hall-effect thrusters developed by the NASA Glenn Center—powered by solar cells. The thrusters will allow the Gateway to change orbits in order to support Lunar surface missions at multiple points on the Lunar surface.

Ad Astra Rocket Company

Cutaway schematic of the Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket (VASIMR).

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

Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket

Another advanced engine is the Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket (VASIMR) engine developed by former NASA astronaut Franklin Chiang Diaz and his Ad Astra Rocket Company. It uses techniques developed in fusion magnetic confinement reactors, such as radio frequency plasma heating, to create an electric or plasma rocket with variable thrust regimes: either slow, super-efficient cruise, or more wasteful but more powerful bursts of thrust when necessary. It is sort of an ion engine with a metaphorical afterburner. Like the X3 discussed above, the VASIMR engine has demonstrated a thrust of 5.4 newtons at 100 kilowatts of power.

A projected test of the VASIMR engine on the International Space Station (ISS) was canceled due to budget constraints. A true crash program will provide for simultaneous development and testing of all of the most promising concepts—otherwise ultimate success is left to chance. A project as difficult as developing bases or settlements on the Moon and Mars demands that the best solutions to propulsion problems be found and utilized as soon as possible!

The most common use of electric (or ion) propulsion systems has been the efficient counteraction of drag effects upon hundreds of Earth satellites caused by occasional collisions with high-altitude molecules. This has always been a low-power process fed by electricity from solar panels. However, now with NASA preparing a mission to Mars, Administrator Bridenstine has made clear that we will be moving rapidly from solar electric to nuclear electric propulsion systems. It is becoming clearer and clearer to all researchers in this area that fission and fusion power sources, tied to one or another form of electric propulsion, are the key to crossing vast distances with speed and large tonnages on repeated round trips. Think in terms of regular daily departures from and arrivals at transfer stations in orbit around the Earth, Moon and Mars.

As is generally the case with transportation on Earth, transport of people and small, high-value items will be separated into faster systems as opposed to heavier freight, which will travel in slower systems. Once we are committed to high-power nuclear sources, work can continue on various pathways to ramp up the thrust levels of the electric propulsion systems from the levels of a few newtons (or pounds) to levels bringing us closer to the goal of 1g acceleration/deceleration.

A project of the European Space Agency and SITAEL of Italy turns the negative of occasional collisions with air molecules into a positive by sucking the colliding molecules into the ion thruster. In this engine, incoming air molecules are ionized instead of relying upon onboard supplies of inert gases such as xenon. This is a valuable capability both for low altitude satellites orbiting Earth and Mars.

Now we turn back to the question of improving access to our orbiting transfer station in Low Earth Orbit (LEO).

Freight from Earth to LEO

The American Space Shuttle program accomplished many things, but it did not succeed in lowering the cost of delivering payloads into Low Earth Orbit. There were many causes for this. I will list five.

First, the process of having to crew-rate every aspect of a mission meant additional costs imposed upon “freight” delivery to orbit. Second, the Shuttle system was a cutting-edge system which required lots of maintenance and preparation between missions. Third, it was always a Research and Development project—always undergoing improvement and refinement—not a fixed production transportation system. Fourth, the attempt to build one machine to do everything inevitably means that its fitness to do particular tasks is compromised. Fifth, the continuous demands to “cut costs or terminate the program” led to continuous design downgrades which resulted in a less robust, more dangerous, and thus ultimately a more costly system—both in terms of time lost and lives lost. These factors precluded rapid turnaround, which would have been the key to lowering launch cost per flight and per kilogram.

ESA

Air-breathing ion thruster. Note the different coloring of ionized air exhaust here as compared to the ionized xenon gas in the X3 ion thruster (Figure 4)

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

Since the experience with the Shuttle, it has been generally acknowledged that it would be better to separate launching of freight from launching of people. People are irreplaceable. Food, water, satellites, etc., while precious, can be replaced. Hence we will be dividing this subject into two sections.

We start with freight. NASA has worked with a number of companies to take NASA’s experience and develop simplified-production chemical rocket systems designed to achieve the lowest costs possible for delivering supplies, and soon crews, to the ISS. Advances on this front include fly-back soft landings of first stage rockets, and reusable spacecraft.

Yet these are incremental or evolutionary developments. NASA itself is concentrating upon building the largest, most powerful heavy-launch vehicle ever built—the Space Launch System (SLS). SLS is also derived from the Shuttle hardware/production system—using Space Shuttle main engines for example. We will have to use all of these systems in the immediate future.

However, none of these systems can put the tonnage of freight into orbit which will be required to support a permanent human presence on other heavenly bodies—not to mention space colonization. The more than 40 years of constricted budgets allocated to NASA has so far precluded the development of the really revolutionary heavy-lift systems necessary for building a base or village on the Moon, for starters.

NASA has done as well as it could, given the constrained resources available. But you must ask, “What would the best system look like if we started from a clean sheet of paper without regard to initial costs of development?” It should be noted here that the biggest payback to society always comes from the clean sheet of paper design (if the design is based upon a revolutionary technology). This is because the process of developing radically new technologies puts the new technologies into the hands of a broad spectrum of not just researchers, but the machine tool and manufacturing sectors. In other words the apparent cheapness of “off-the-shelf technology” is an illusion. The new technology (if it is really revolutionary) will pay for itself and thus actually be the cheaper choice (although there will be a time lag for the payback to become overwhelmingly apparent).

StarTram

Once freed from the necessity of using off-the-shelf technologies for budgetary constraint reasons, we can look at this problem in a new light. Dr. James Powell, who along with Dr. Gordon Danby, invented the superconducting magnetic levitation (maglev) rail system now being put into commercial operation by the Central Japan Railway Company, proposed to apply the same principles to launch payloads into Earth orbit.

His proposal is called StarTram, and, in principle, would use buried superconducting coils to store up electrical energy over a long period of time to be released in a short burst to accelerate a spacecraft with payload through a 100 km evacuated tube curving 5,000 meters up a mountainside. It would proceed through and exit from the atmosphere, where a small rocket burn can circularize an orbit. A first-generation system could launch a 40-ton spacecraft, the weight including its 35-ton payload, 12 times per day—for a capacity to put 150,000 tons of supplies into orbit per year.

This is the order of capability necessary to begin a permanent manned presence on the Moon or Mars. By comparison, the expendable SLS will initially have a 77-ton-to-orbit capacity, which will grow to a 143-ton-to-orbit capacity in the fully developed system. Even 1,000 launches per year of the fully developed Space Launch System could not match the capability of the StarTram system.

This is one task that requires significant outside intervention to bring to fruition. Remember that StarTram is completely different and has no pre-existing lobby. Yet it embodies the same technologies which shall be central to both the most advanced ground transportation and fusion plasma development and control—high temperature superconductors and superconducting magnets operating in near-vacuums or low-pressure chambers. The most advanced and fastest ground transportation system now operating is the Japanese repulsive superconducting maglev system. The most advanced ground transportation system currently conceivable would use similar technology—but inside evacuated tubes to allow velocities over 1,000 km/h and possibly up to several thousand km/h for very long distances.

NASA

Different technologies to catapult-launch a spacecraft have been tested by NASA, including this magnetic levitation (maglev) system evaluated at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center.

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

As in the case of building a national maglev rail system, building the StarTram first-generation system will require an enormous initial construction cost—comparable to the cost of the Apollo program. But it is the only conceivable system that could lower the cost of massive provisioning to permanent settlement of other heavenly bodies to the point that cost per kilogram to LEO could be reduced to the range of $40-50 or so. On the other hand, these economies of scale apply only if the decision is made to develop extraterrestrial bases and settlements to actually use some high percentage of the StarTram capacity. Now that NASA is committed to settlement of the Moon and Mars, this technology must be developed.

This project is the answer to heavy-lift requirements of Lunar and Mars bases, villages and settlements. One of the main foci of our intervention will have to be to push this system. A first-generation system can be built in 6 to 10 years, once a decision is made to go forward with it.

All of these new technologies about which we have so far written involve electromagnetic acceleration of ions or vehicles. These new technologies constitute a family of technologies that will play an ever-greater role in the advance of civilization over the next few decades. Heat-powered machinery will not be completely replaced, but development will take place increasingly inside the electromagnetic sphere of technologies. The same technologies are key to transforming the surface and subsurface transportation system inside the United States. And this area is one in which a great deal of international cooperation is called for. Japan, China and Germany have been the leaders in the physical production of magnetic levitation transportation systems. Any NASA efforts towards testing and development of the StarTram system would greatly benefit from cooperation with engineers and institutions from these nations.

The first-generation StarTram will not be able to launch people because of the 30 g force imposed upon the payload, and the bump of up to 6g’s when the spacecraft comes out of the evacuated tube and hits the rarefied atmosphere. So how do we get people to orbit? In the near term, we will be using the chemical rocket systems that NASA, along with several private space access companies, has been developing. However, these systems are far from ideal.

Passengers to LEO

The liquid chemical rockets generally used around the world to orbit spacecraft burn fuels such as kerosene, hydrogen, or methane, which is combined with liquid oxygen to burn independently of the atmosphere. By mixing the oxygen with the fuel in the engine (and providing a spark to ignite it) the fuel will burn to create high pressure and thrust, regardless of whether or not it is surrounded by air. However, it is a little crazy to have to haul oxygen through the atmosphere that is roughly 21% oxygen. Imagine having to fill up your car with both gasoline and the oxygen it uses. That would be an unnecessary pain.

If we could do it, wouldn’t it make more sense to get the oxygen we need from the atmosphere through which we must fly, rather than carrying aloft a separate (and very heavy) supply of liquid oxygen through the ambient oxygen in the air? That was the original concept of the ramjet.

You can think of a ramjet as basically a tube with fuel injectors to mix fuel with air coming through the tube. With a spark, the mixture ignites and creates high pressure and thrust—in the same manner as a chemical rocket engine. However, a ramjet has no way to get air to begin to move through the tube unless we either attach it to a moving plane or rocket to force a stream of air into the tube, or attach a fan to suck in some air (as in a turbojet). Secondly, as a ramjet accelerates, shockwaves and other disturbances can disrupt the combustion process. Ramjets can be tricky. A long-term goal in the aerospace industry has been to develop efficient, high-speed ramjets that could operate with combustion taking place inside the engine at supersonic speeds—hence the term Supersonic Combustion Ramjet or Scramjet.

DARPA

The American Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), as well as the Beijing Power Machinery Research Institute (and probably many more military/aerospace institutions) are working on building “combined cycle” or “full range” engines which incorporate a turbojet along with an integral ramjet/scramjet engine to allow full operation from a standstill to Mach 5+ hypersonic flight.

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

The Sänger Scramjet/Rocket

Since Lyndon LaRouche’s 1984 promotion of the German Sänger two-stage scramjet/rocket launcher concept to reach orbit, scramjet engines have actually been built and used in powered flights. A short test flight achieved a sustained velocity of near Mach 10 (about 12,000 km/h), while another test flight demonstrated scramjet high Mach number propulsion for about 10 minutes. However, these test vehicles had to be air dropped and rocket assisted to reach speeds at which the scramjet could begin to function. Much work in this area is ongoing in America, China, Russia, India, and other countries; however, for military reasons, most of this work is being done in secrecy.

The Sänger idea is for a carrier scramjet-powered aircraft to accelerate from the ground to high altitude and high Mach number and then release a winged orbiter which would have a rocket motor to propel itself the final way for orbital insertion. The problem is that to ignite a scramjet, the scramjet must already be travelling at about Mach 4. The initial takeoff thrust could be provided by additional turbojet engines, rocket engines, combined-cycle engines (scramjet engines with moveable ductwork to redirect incoming airflow between integral turbojet and ramjet/scramjet sections) or maybe even an electromagnetic catapult on a much grander scale than the electromagnetic catapults recently installed on America’s newest aircraft carrier, the U.S.S. Gerald R. Ford. NASA actually made such an electromagnetic launch assist proposal in 2010 and did some testing at the Marshall Spaceflight Center in Huntsville.

Synergistic Air Breathing Rocket Engine

While we encourage continued work on all of these technologies, the candidate most likely to succeed in making passenger access safe, gentle and relatively cheap to the LEO transfer station—to board the long-distance electric propulsion tugs—will be single-stage-to-orbit spaceplanes powered by SABREs (synergistic air breathing rocket engines). Our full report on this breakthrough is available in the June 8, 2018 issue of EIR.

In summary, the Reaction Engines Ltd. SABRE, when travelling at speeds up to around Mach 5, is able to rapidly cool the extremely hot incoming air, thus allowing the incoming air to replace liquid oxygen as oxidizer for its rocket engines. Beyond around Mach 5, the air inlets are closed, and on-board liquid oxygen is fed into the same rocket engines to allow the spaceplane to continue to orbit—never having to drop any first stage or tankage.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)-funded test program ongoing in Colorado, has recently successfully tested the cooler (key to the entire engine concept) up to Mach 3.5. Preparations are continuing, to perform testing of the system to its intended Mach 5 capability. There is great interest in this breakthrough technology throughout the aerospace world. We must insist upon full funding from NASA to speed the development and testing of the full SABRE (despite the fact that this is developed by a company based in the United Kingdom), and that NASA has the funding to start a competition for design of prototype space planes using the new engine.

Painting by Chris Sloan

Krafft Ehricke invented the Lunar Slide Lander concept as a system to minimize propellant requirements during descent to the Lunar surface, taking advantage of the Moon’s sandy and glassy soil to slow the vehicle. He created a new branch of spaceflight dynamics: harenodynamics, after the Latin word for sandy.

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

Lunar and Martian Landers

Once our respective tugs for passengers and freight make it to Lunar or Martian orbital transfer stations, what happens? No real advances would affect the original designs of Krafft Ehricke for landers—except that now we know that the regolith of the Moon and Mars contains huge quantities of water ice. So as bases grow to settlements with advanced water-processing capabilities, surface water will be turned into liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen for use as rocket fuel—both for powered ascent to orbiting transfer stations and as fuel resupplies to be used in the descent phases as well.

In the case of the Moon, Ehricke’s Lunar Slide Lander could be used to conserve fuel burn on descent to the surface. For ascent, a much simpler version of StarTram can be used on the Moon and Mars. As Ehricke pointed out, on the Moon there would be no need for an evacuated tube since there is no atmosphere there, and since the force of gravity there is very weak (only 17% that of Earth), the track need not be that long.

In the case of Mars, the thin atmosphere may offer the possibility of winged Martian spaceplanes operating between orbit and surface—we will have to see.

In any case, for the first years, chemical rockets will maintain their position as the only means to land and take off from either body.

What You Can Do

Unless you happen to be a billionaire looking to use your wealth to start up a StarTram company to meet the massive demand for tonnage to orbit which we will soon face, the most important action you can take is to circulate this article as well as the “Moon-Mars Crash Program Under a Four-Powers Agreement” article in the October 16, 2018 issue of EIR and the “Breakthrough Heralds Dawn of the Age of Single-Stage-to-Orbit Spaceplanes” article in the June 8, 2018 issue of EIR to friends, acquaintances and to your Congressman. Tell your Congressman to stop wasting time on the investigation of the investigation of the investigation, and to think about the future.

If we are to have the future we need, we must implement LaRouche’s full Four Laws. Credit and government contracts must flow into the areas identified in this series:

1. Full funding for the Artemis Program.

2. Full funding for a national program to rapidly develop fusion power—for electricity and rocketry, including the Direct Fusion Drive project.

3. Full funding for a national project to develop the StarTram technology into a freight-to-orbit railroad.

4. Full funding for rapid development of the SABRE.

5. Full funding for a competition to design, build and begin testing of an actual spaceplane using the SABRE.

FUSION ENERGY SYMPOSIUM

‘Commercial Fusion Not Soon Enough’

Says NJ State Sen. Joseph Pennacchio

by Marsha Freeman and Suzanne Klebe

Art Murphy

Sen. Joe Pennacchio opening the May 23 Symposium on fusion in the New Jersey State Senate. To his right is Dr. Michael Zarnstorff, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab; to his left is the moderator, Marsha Freeman.

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

June 1—A most extraordinary symposium on fusion energy development took place on Thursday, May 23 in the New Jersey State Senate in Trenton, sponsored by senior Senator Joseph Pennacchio (R-26). It was titled, “What Are the Prospects and Requirements for the Early Development of Fusion Energy, and What Are the Implications for the U.S., New Jersey, and the World?” The symposium brought experts in the field of fusion energy research together with state political representatives, students, and interested citizens.

The invitation announced:

Achieving commercial development of fusion energy would revolutionize the international economy. It would signal a new era of economic and scientific development world-wide. July 20 is the anniversary of the American achievement of landing men on the Moon. What better time to assess the needs and funding for a new great achievement by the United States, and now with other countries around the world?

Experts from national laboratories, businesses—including three New Jersey businesses working on fusion energy development—and researchers in the field will present their work, and share their knowledge of what is being undertaken, and what lies ahead.

The enthusiastic response by the fusion researchers was clear evidence of the great interest, as well as curiosity, in this invitation to the scientific community from a State Senator to discuss fusion.

Symposium Participants

The symposium was attended by 80-100 people from across the state, despite incredible travel difficulties and problematic weather. Chairmen of physics departments from several universities attended, as well as graduate students in the field. Schiller Institute members, and one class of high school students from a nearby school, were in the audience as well. (The appearance of the students drew comments from the podium.) A faculty member from a college physics department, who could not make it through the traffic chaos, emailed from the road to say she was contacted by her dean, who was attending a fusion conference in Japan, and told to be sure to attend.

A person with a program that puts scientists on legislators’ staffs was there, as was a nuclear energy department chair, who had been the docent of a program in Russia some years ago. Another physics department head said she was very concerned about the lack of understanding by the average American on questions of science.

The vice president of one of the companies participating in the symposium had arranged a tour of the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab at the conclusion of the symposium. More than 20 people attended the excellent tour. One of those who went on the tour, Jose Vega, from the Bronx, who had recently been a student, noted that the environment of constant experimentation and involvement of students and older scientists together on projects of all kinds was the way education should be pursued.

Institute for Plasma Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences

Support for China’s fusion program comes from the top. Here, President Xi Jinping on one of his visits to the Institute for Plasma Physics, in April 2011.

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

The responses, questions, and extended discussions with the scientists after the formal presentations, by members of the audience, indicate how quickly the United States could enthusiastically re-establish its “technological optimism.”

Senator Pennacchio, minority whip of the State Senate, has been a long-time enthusiast for developing fusion energy. In his opening remarks, Sen. Pennacchio noted:

What got me thinking about doing this [symposium] was that recently the Chinese landed on the far side of the Moon. And the Chinese did not go there for sight-seeing. Among probably some of the priorities that they had was to look at mining [helium-3] . . . as an intricate part of one of the processes as applied to fusion energy.

For me, [developing fusion] is important because I can imagine a nice clean, safe, source of renewable energy—for which elements can be gotten from our oceans, or even from our Moon, that can supply humankind with an infinite amount of energy. Imagine if this energy—this is special now—imagine if it had bipartisan support; imagine if it had the support of the environmentalists; imagine if countries like the United States, Russia and China and Europe worked together. . . . [T]hat is the promise, and that is what is currently happening with fusion energy. . . .

It has been estimated that by 2025 we could have a sustainable fusion reaction, and commercial applications somewhere around 2050. That, in my humble opinion, is not soon enough.

The problems that we have . . . for instance in space travel—we have to get a new propulsion system that can overcome those challenges—one of the ways to allow intergalactic and interplanetary travel in the future.

Imagine the benefits that men and women can reap from its development, and not only the main energy application of fusion, but the ancillary applications, like we had with the space program.

Myself, and the other legislators in this building—we need to know how we can help that; how can we nurture and help this game changer come into being.

Art Murphy

Following the Symposium, approximately 20 people toured the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab.

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

Why Don’t We Have Fusion?

The symposium was addressed by a distinguished panel of scientists, who put forward some of the creative solutions—now under development—to the challenges raised by Senator Pennacchio.

Speakers presented different and sometimes conflicting approaches to fusion development—a point of interest to the audience and members of the panel. Papers, statements, and literature were contributed by the University of Wisconsin’s Fusion Technology Institute; MIT’s Plasma Physics Department; the founder of the Alcator Project; and the US-ITER office in Oak Ridge, TN.

Marsha Freeman, Technology Editor for EIR, was invited to moderate, and also to speak on China’s fusion program. Freeman began the session by posing two questions: “Why do we need fusion, and why don’t we have it?”

She answered the first question by explaining that fusion, as an energy source, offers an energy-flux density that is orders of magnitude higher than any “competing” source. Fusion also creates an entirely new platform for science and the economy, through plasma applications. This new platform includes creating a new source of fuel with fusion/fission hybrid reactors, new materials processing capabilities, and the fusion torch. Freeman added that we will have unlimited science and exploration opportunities with fusion propulsion, as noted by Sen. Pennacchio.

FIGURE 1

FIGURE 2

Devices and Capabilities Lost Since the 1990s

Text: Devices and Capabilities Lost Since the 1990s

Date of Shutdown | Experiment | Location | Description

1990 | LSX FRC | Math Sciences Northwest | A brand new facility and experiment at a commercial company under contract to DOE.

1990 | Tandem Mirror Machine | (TARA) | MIT | A mirror machine experiment at one of the nation's premiere university fusion programs.

1990 | Compact Torus Spheromak Experiment (CTX) | LANL | Leading facility in the world looking at the spheromak, a potentially simpler magnetic geometry than the tokamak.

1990 | Advanced Toroidal Facility (ATF) | ORNL | The first major stellarator in the U.S. built to study steady-state sustainment of fusion plasmas.

1995 | Princeton Beam Experiment-Modified (PBX-M) | PPPL | An experiment using strong plasma shaping to increase the plasma pressure, was developing new methods to control plasma stability.

1995 | Microwave Tokamak Experiment (MTX) | LLNL | An experiment to use a free electron laser to generate mocrowaves as an innovative way of heating and controlling the plasma.

1996 | Texas Experimental Tokamak (TEXT) | University of Texas at Austin | Dedicated to turbulent transport (maintaining the energy of the plasma).

1997 | Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor PPPL (TFTR) | Largest U.S. fusion experiment, and one of two in the world capable of using D-T fuel to produce > 10MW of fusion energy.

Late 1990s | Staged Z-Pinch | UC Irvine | High density pulsed approach to achieving fusion.

2003 | Electric Tokamak | UCLA | Very large low field tokamak for innovative confinement and heating ideas

2007 | POPS Electrostatic Confinement Penning Trap | LANL | Innovative approach to electrostatic confinement, suppported by theory, with a very compact point neutron source.

2007 | Spheromak (SSPX) | LLNL | Innovative fusion confiuration design to achieve a fusion plasma with less engineering and materials.

2010 | Field Reversed Configuration (TCS-U) | University of Washington | The only experiment of its kind in the field reversed configuration, using rotating magnetic fields for a simpler engineering approach to a high-pressure plasma

2010 | Levitated Dipole Experiment (LDX) | MIT | Explored high-pressure steady-state plasma configurations.

2010 | Maryland Centrifugal Experiment | University of Maryland | Examined the effects on plasma confinement of the supersonic spinning of the plasma.

2014 | Magnetized Target Fusion (MTF) | Air Force Research Lab and LANL | High Energy Density Plasma (HEDP) experiment combining features of magnetic and inertial fusion

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

As to why we don’t already have fusion, Freeman showed the graph of federal funding for fusion research from the 1950s (Figure 1). For the past four decades, the level of support for research has been on a trajectory so drastically low, that the United States would never reach a viable demonstration of fusion as an energy source. She presented a dramatic picture of what has been lost during these lost decades in a table of fusion experiments and facilities (Figure 2) that were planned but not built, halted before completed, or completed but never turned on. The list was compiled by Megan Beets of the LaRouche PAC Science Team.

Fusion in the Large . . .

Senator Pennacchio’s interest in fusion was evident in his pride in the contributions by New Jersey’s Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL). Princeton made ground-breaking advances in the mainline tokamak fusion program in the 1970s and 1980s. The history and current research at the laboratory, and the basics of plasma physics, were reviewed at the symposium by Dr. Michael Zarnstorff, Chief Scientist at PPPL. He was formerly deputy director of research and has been a physicist at the Lab since 1984.

PPPL has 500 of the top U.S. researchers in fusion science and engineering. The Princeton Large Torus and Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor set many of the standards worldwide for tokamak research.

Dr. Zarnstorff reported that the Lab’s National Spherical Torus Experiment is now undergoing repairs. When it is back in operation, it will be a powerful experimental and engineering facility. PPPL has an extensive education and outreach program, reaching students of all ages, from K-12 to graduate students. He ended his presentation saying the scientists at the Lab are now working on designing smaller, cheaper fusion power plants that can compete with other energy sources.

By far, the world’s largest and most ambitious tokamak project is the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), under construction in France. Seven international partners, which include the United States, are building ITER, and 27 companies in New Jersey are responsible for providing state-of-the-art components and engineering for the project.

Dr. Fred Levinton founded Nova Photonics in Princeton, New Jersey, in 2000, which is a small business engaged in R&D for advanced plasma diagnostics for fusion, with an emphasis on developing optics and lasers. The complex of diagnostics for ITER provides the window through which to measure the magnetic fields, temperature, other characteristics and activity of the plasma. Dr. Levinton has worked with ITER for almost 20 years on diagnostics of magnetic fields in plasmas, and leads a physics and engineering design team for a diagnostic system that will be installed on ITER.

Princeton Plasma Physics Lab

The four-year upgrade of the National Spherical Torus Experiment was completed in 2016.

FIGURE 3

Nova Photonics

Nova Photonics’ model of an ITER port plug with several diagnostics integrated into it.

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

Nova Photonics has developed a number of spin-off applications from its research, including an optical filter that is being tested by the U.S. Navy for underwater laser communications (Figure 3).

Referring back to the chart of the decline in fusion funding (Figure 1), Dr. Levinton pointed out the irony that since 80% of the U.S. funding for ITER goes to companies like his, cutting the budget for U.S. contributions for ITER only reduces research right here in the United States!

LPPFusion

Middlesex, New Jersey-based LPPFusion is developing the Focus Fusion approach to fusion.

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

. . . And in the Small

Whereas ITER demonstrates the conventional tokamak approach, in which increase in size is central to an increase in performance, a number of New Jersey companies are developing fusion “in the small,” as needed for certain applications—most definitely in space.

Princeton Fusion Systems, a subsidiary of Princeton Satellite Systems, is working with scientists at PPPL on the Princeton Field Reversed Configuration (PFRC) experiment. It is a magnetic confinement fusion design, “which is a step in producing a compact nuclear fusion reactor that would fit on a truck,” explained Michael Paluszek, President of Princeton Satellite Systems. [See article by Michael Carr in this issue of EIR for more about the PFRC experiments and the Direct Fusion Drive.]

“It would be ideal for space propulsion, emergency power, remote power for mines and resource extraction, and for military forward power,” Paluszek said. The fuels for the PFRC will be deuterium and helium-3, “which dramatically reduce neutron damage and radioactivity.”

Princeton Fusion Systems

Princeton Fusion Systems is working with scientists from PPPL on the Princeton Field Reversed Configuration, a small compact fusion system, ideal for space propulsion.

LPPFusion

LPPFusion’s President Eric Lerner with a Focus Fusion experiment.

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

Princeton Fusion Systems is currently working under grants from the Department of Energy and NASA for advanced technology development, and in the past had funding from NASA to develop the Direct Fusion Drive for a number of space missions, including a proposed Pluto Orbiter.

Other Alternative Approaches

At Lawrenceville Plasma Physics Fusion (LPPFusion), in Middlesex, New Jersey, an entirely different approach to fusion is being pursued. A complex experimental design attempts to “use the natural instabilities of plasmas, rather than fighting them.” In nature, plasmas can form “disruptions,” such as filaments and other structures. (Look at such phenomena on the Sun.) LPPFusion is developing the Focus Fusion approach to take advantage of this self-organizing characteristic of plasmas.

Eric Lerner, President and Chief Scientist of LPPFusion, reported that the company has already published the highest confined temperature of any fusion device, and using a hydrogen-boron fuel, the reaction produces no neutrons. Electricity can be produced directly from the fusion plasma.

Lerner reported that the inadequate federal funding for fusion has all but eliminated support for non-tokamak research. “The fundamental mistake made in the government fusion program in the 1970s was to prematurely focus all research on the tokamak and laser approaches.” This became an irreversible policy with the budget contraction starting in the 1980s. Instead, Lerner argued, “what is needed today is a crash program that funds all approaches that can’t be proven impossible.”

It is noteworthy, in this connection, that one of the attendees at the symposium was a venture capitalist, who heads a new fusion 501(c)(3) (tax deductible) organization. He said his organization is connecting donors to start-ups in this field. The lack of adequate federal funding for fusion and space research is increasing the role of “private” investors, whose support was welcomed by the researchers, who have nowhere else to go. This change in source funding will change the character of U.S. science to “proprietary control” by a group of investors who are filling the vacuum left by the lack of governmental and public support for a federally funded, mission-oriented crash program for fusion energy.

Another approach to fusion being developed at the Fusion Technology Institute at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, led by its director, Dr. Gerald Kulcinski, is Inertial Electrostatic Confinement (IEC). As Dr. Kulcinski could not attend the symposium, he sent recent papers and graphics, which were summarized by Marsha Freeman.

Gerald Kulcinski

In this photo taken at a fusion meeting in Japan in 2002 are, left to right: Apollo 17 astronaut, Harrison Schmitt; Prof. Masami Ohnishi, from Kyoto University; FTI Director, Dr. Gerald Kulcinski; and Robert Hirsch, past leader of the federal fusion program.

Gerald Kulcinski

Artist’s impression of the Mark II lunar helium-3 miner.

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

In 1986, the Wisconsin team identified the presence of helium-3 in the lunar regolith and their experiments in IEC have the goal of investigating the use of advanced fusion fuels. To investigate further the presence of helium-3 and other resources on the Moon, Apollo 17 astronaut and geologist Harrison Schmitt joined the faculty of the Wisconsin institute.

The Fusion Technology Institute has designed a second-generation lunar helium-3 miner, the Mark-2, which will undoubtedly be updated as we learn more about the distribution and concentration of helium-3 on the Moon.

China’s ‘Long View’ Fusion Program

“Why is it the case that China can carry out a long-term fusion program over decades, without the vagaries of annual budget fights, and continuous re-evaluations and changes in direction?” asked Marsha Freeman.

The answer is that China’s fusion program, like its space program, is not seen as an isolated line item in a budget, but as an important contribution to that country’s economic growth, which is based upon on fundamental breakthroughs in science and applied technology. Fusion and space exploration play important roles, therefore, as “science drivers” for their entire economy. And that national policy is expressed in the requisite financial support and in the attention paid by the top leadership of the country.

Institute for Plasma Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences

China’s Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak (EAST), the first fully superconducting tokamak in the world.

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

China has determined that it will need fusion power at least by mid-century, if not sooner, to support a rising standard of living for its growing population. So in addition to being one of the partners in ITER, China has a very ambitious domestic program, to take the next steps.

Last December, China broke ground for a Comprehensive Research Facilities complex, which will develop the manufacturing technologies for the most challenging components of China’s future Engineering Test Reactor (ETR).

In the meantime, in addition to ITER, China’s Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak (EAST) is laying the foundation for the more advanced experiments to come. EAST began operation in 2006 as the world’s first fully superconducting tokamak, which has set records for plasma temperature and confinement time.

A hallmark of China’s fusion program has been international cooperation. Chinese scientists travel to fusion experiments abroad, and American scientists and scientists from other countries meet in China, and even carry out experiments on EAST.

Now, China is in a position to help developing countries learn how to start their own education programs, and where possible, help with experimental experience and hardware.

Like the Kulcinski group, which is concentrating on using the advanced fusion fuel helium-3 and mining it on the Moon, the father of China’s lunar program, Ouyang Ziyuan, the creator of cosmochemistry in China, is a premier promoter of mining helium-3 on the Moon. Ouyang Ziyuan said in 2006:

Currently, fusion technology is not mature, but once it is commercialized, fuel supply will become a problem. . . . Each year, three Space Shuttle missions could bring back enough fuel for all human beings across the world.

German-American space visionary Krafft Ehricke pictured a city on the Moon that he called Selenopolis, where thousands of people would live and work, and the helium-3 mined there would power the city, its transportation, mining and manufacturing, and would open the rest of the Solar system to mankind.

Art Murphy

The Symposium is for the young people, said Sen. Pennacchio, at the conclusion of the event. Here, Jose Vega, a recent student from the Bronx, New York, addresses the panel during the question and answer period.

Art Murphy

New Jersey State Senator Joseph Pennacchio.

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

‘This Symposium Is for the Young People’

In his closing remarks at the end of the symposium, Sen. Pennacchio said that most important and helpful for him was hearing the divergence of opinions on how we will achieve fusion:

In my 64 years, the thing I know absolutely, is that there are no absolutes: Ulcers come from stress, right? No, take an antibiotic. The Earth is flat—No, the Earth is round. Well it is not actually really round, but sort of punched in. When I grew up, the atom was the absolute smallest element known to man, now we are way beyond quarks. So science is changing.

The main point is to engage the public, let them know what is out there. And the young people who came in—this symposium is for them more than for anybody else, because they are the ones who will benefit from what we are discussing today. I hope you found it helpful and informative. It was helpful to me, and will be for my grandson.

In remarks to the speakers after the symposium, Sen. Pennacchio said he thought the presentations were well received, as most of the people in the audience stayed until the end. Asked about possible follow-up to the symposium, he said:

I am working with staff to see how we can incentivize and nurture fusion research and industry in New Jersey. I may draft a resolution in support of increased funding at the federal level. It has been estimated that by 2025 we could have a sustainable fusion reaction, and commercial applications are somewhere around 2050. That, in my humble opinion, is not soon enough.

The President has accelerated the timetable for the manned landing on the Moon. Now it is time to bring fusion up front and do the same.

During the question and answer period at the end, Jose Vega asked the panelists how to change the culture of people his age, who have grown up with drugs and school shootings. Members of the panel, as well as of the audience, related how the space program had encouraged them to pursue a life in science, bringing optimism to their generation.

MIDWEST RAINS CONTINUE

World Corn and Soy Crop,

U.S. National Economy at Risk

by Marcia Merry Baker

Robert L. Baker

Robert L. Baker

The same corn field in prime farm land in Keokuk County, Iowa, showing growth as of May 29, 2018 (top), and May 29, 2019. This crop may either have to be replanted, with a much lower per-acre yield, or will be a total loss.

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

May 31—Farmers in large parts of the U.S. Midwest farm belt, whose planting and crop emergence have been held back by soggy fields, are now at a critical decision time. They and the nation face major consequences. For the world, the U.S. corn harvest accounts for over one third of the annual total, and U.S. soybeans over 25%. The crops are way, way behind schedule. But the implications are far broader than even a one-off bad crop year. There are simultaneous crises. The question is, what will citizens and leaders do, not only about the flooding and agriculture emergency, but about the national economy—industry, infrastructure, power, and international strategic relations.

The prolonged high-water in the Missouri-Mississippi River Basins is setting many records for high crests, continuous flooding and devastation. All the farm states from the Dakotas south to Louisiana are affected. As of Memorial Day, evacuations were underway in parts of Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, Arkansas and Oklahoma. This is the heart of the U.S. farm belt. Iowa and Illinois alone account for 25% of all U.S. soybean output. Navigation is extremely disrupted, affecting fertilizer and chemical shipments going north, and grain, south. On May 23, the U.S. Coast Guard announced that the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers were closed near St. Louis to “all vessel traffic due to extremely high water levels and fast-moving currents.” This is the second time this year.

For these Midwest agriculture states, this disaster comes atop years of low income—below costs of production for family farms. They are being driven out of business, even though many have worked off the farm for income to make up for their agriculture losses. The chief cause is the continuing globalist monetarist policy which asserts the fake narrative that commodity prices to farmers are export-dependent, and there is nothing you or your nation can do about it. It’s “the markets,” as the World Trade Organization (WTO) asserts, whose founding slogan was “One World, One Market.” In fact, low prices to the farmer are attributed to “overproduction.” And, in recent years, the mega-retail transnationals—WalMart, Carrefour, Costco, are driving down prices even more, destroying farm communities.

Add to this the further destabilization to U.S. farmers over the last 15 months, from low prices and prospects connected to the trade conflict with China. President Donald Trump is rightly trying to correct the WTO-era legacy of bad trade patterns, but negotiations with China to date are stuck, because of avoidance of the required core policy shift: stop the transnational firms of Wall Street/City of London from imposing their WTO “global sourcing” practices of cheap production, commodity speculation and domination.

On May 22, President Trump announced aid to farmers, to be done to counter what the White House termed, China’s “unjustified retaliation and trade disruption.” The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) will implement a $16 billion package of $14.5 billion in direct payments to producers—the “Market Mitigation Program,” and $1.4 billion in funding for Federal commodity purchases of surplus product for use in schools and charity, and $100 million for expanding export prospects. Flanked by farmers and ranchers at a White House media event, Trump announced “We will ensure our farmers get the relief they need and very, very quickly.”

White House/Tia Dufour

President Trump delivers remarks supporting America’s farmers and ranchers in the Roosevelt Room of the White House on May 23, 2019.

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

A $19 billion aid package (for the Midwest flooding zone, California, Gulf areas and Puerto Rico) has been pending for weeks in the House, but they left town on May 24 for Memorial Day recess without so much as a vote on even straight disaster relief for the Midwest flooded regions—emergency measures, grants and credit for rebuilding, etc., even though the Senate had voted the previous day 85 to 8 in favor, and President Trump said he would sign it.

Then, on May 30 came still another source of uncertainty, this time affecting U.S.-Mexico trade. President Trump announced his intention to impose a series of new tariffs, “until the illegal immigration problem is remedied.” He specified a 5% tariff on all imports from Mexico starting June 10, rising to 15% in August, 20% in September, and 25% in October, unless the Mexican government acts to stop illegal immigration across the border.

Meantime, the damage toll mounts from the heavy rains, wind and flooding in the Missouri-Mississippi River basins, and it is predicted to continue well into June, exactly on the timetable forecast by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in March. Given this advance warning, the lack of timely response, and need for infrastructure is glaring.

Leaders: ‘Sit Down at the Table’

Therefore, before reporting more details of the flooding impact and these other aspects of the crisis—all but blacked out of the major media—it is worth stating right up front: the best thing that can happen is for the leaders of the world’s major powers—President Trump, President Xi Jinping of China, President Vladimir Putin of Russia, and others—to meet, and commit to proceeding to the benefit of all concerned on economic relations. The content of their discussion, needs to be how to further the fullest development of the agriculture, industry, culture (education, the arts), science and technology, and a modern infrastructure platform in their respective nations, and others as well. The positive impact of such a policy is already being felt in those countries participating in China’s historic Belt and Road Initiative process.

President Trump has stated over and again his desire for friendly, productive relations with Putin, Xi and other leaders. He recently mentioned his intention to meet them June 26-28 in Osaka, Japan at the Group of 20 Summit. Given that not only is the Mueller Report out and should be done with, and that the truth is coming out publicly that British intelligence is behind Russia-Gate and Trump-Gate, colluding with corrupt Americans against Trump and the U.S. election system, the way is now cleared for him to move on such meetings.

We could be at the beginning of a new era of mutual benefit to the world. The banner for initiating the process is international collaboration on space exploration and development.

This strategic approach to ending the era of “free” trade damage, and lack of action on the economy at home, rings true among farm state leaders. For example, in Montana, this is what John Goggins, the publisher of the Western Ag Reporter, wrote in his lead editorial May 16, “United States and China Still Butting Heads”:

Well, here is what I think needs to happen. I know it may be a little unorthodox, but I feel President Trump and President Xi need to quit relying on their trade negotiators and sit down at a table and get this deal hammered out between themselves. President Trump needs to quit tweeting, and instead call President Xi right now and get a meeting set up. We don’t need to wait until the end of June for this to happen. Time is of the essence.

The monthly newsletter of the Kansas Cattlemen’s Association has carried the same message. In Robert L. Baker’s regular column, Hey, America! Beef-Up! No. 32, in the May 2019 issue, “Disaster Response? Break with the Wall Street Loser System,” he states:

The way is open to move in the direction of the policy mandate that elected President Trump, toward economic betterment of the nation, ending the geopolitical warfare actions [and economic confrontations] . . . and instead move for high-level collaboration with China, Russia and other great powers, as Trump spoke of during his campaign. . .With this spirit of collaboration, concrete programs can be worked out, no matter how complicated.

End the WTO Era

Strategic collaboration among the major powers can finally put an end to the WTO era. It is worth re-stating the point: the anti-nation, anti-development principle embodied in the World Trade Organization (1995), the North American Free Trade Agreement (1994), the attempted Trans-Pacific Partnership (2016) and similar pacts, is that any one nation’s support and development of its own agriculture, industry, technology, etc. is by definition, depriving a trading partner nation of an opportunity to sell goods and services into that nation. Translation: The transnational cartels of mega-companies—which do the trading—want to continue what they believe is their right to dominate and concentrate production wherever they choose. This is the old British free trade system in action. We fought a revolution to get rid of it, and created the American System.

Look at the awful logic of WTO conflict resolution motions filed between nations regarding food commodities. For example, the United States. government filed a WTO action against China, on the claim that if China aids its domestic corn growers—which it wants to do, to support a growing livestock sector—then this deprives the United States—meaning Cargill, Louis Dreyfus, and Bunge, from sourcing cheap corn from the U.S. corn belt, to sell to China.

Another example: Canada filed a WTO action against the United States, claiming that if Country-Of-Origin Labels (COOL) were allowed to be put on meat for U.S. consumers, this would inhibit the ability of Canada and other “nations”—meaning the private cartel firms—to sell meat in the U.S. market. So COOL was banned in the United States in 2015, after it had been in effect for two years. Now most U.S. consumers who buy “grass fed” beef—currently popular—probably don’t know that 85% of what they’re eating is imported from Australia, South America or elsewhere, at big profits by the globalist trading houses, and with low prices paid to cattlemen in every country involved.

There are hundreds of examples of this. This situation has come about, not as the result of nation-to-nation deals, but as Wall Street/City of London related cartels bulling through anything they want, against the interest of all nations caught in their web, as a result of the WTO regime.

In every category, the U.S. food supply has been outsourced by the mega-firms, to the detriment of the farm sector in all trading countries concerned. One more example proves the point. Ninety percent of U.S. consumption of frozen broccoli is now imported from Mexico and Central America, arranged by the “Jolly” Green Giant and the other transnationals.

International Cooperation, Federal Planning

How might things be different were Presidents Trump and Xi to get together on agriculture trade? Take the prominent case of soybeans. China’s national plan for raising nutrition levels, calls for more meat in the diet, and expanding the livestock sector. China can therefore use large amounts of soybeans for livestock feed. The United States has a big soybean output capacity and can supply China’s needs.

What to do if this year’s U.S. soybean harvest is a weather disaster? It can be worked out, nation to nation, with other partners.

Moreover, it is now time to confer on U.S. contingency plans for the future, as China succeeds in producing more of its own livestock feed, and the U.S. will benefit by supporting its farmers to diversify to other crops and trade patterns. This will be the opportunity to increase the number of young farmers, and family-scale operations, through parity-based pricing, and what has been traditionally called “production management,” referring to encouraging or discouraging the agriculture commodities so as to benefit the national interest, not London/Wall Street cartel objectives.

Look at another commodity, pork. China is currently dealing with a swine fever outbreak, in which over a million hogs have been lost directly from the disease itself and from culling to prevent the spread of the disease. As a result, the Chinese pig breeding herd is down over 20% from last year. Pork imports can add greatly to fill their domestic supply shortage. The United States has a big pork production capacity and could help make up the deficit. The point should be clear, and it applies to all categories of trade, from industrial to services, even including communication electronics. The time is past due, to end the geo-economic conflict approach, the legacy of British geopolitics.

USDA

A flooded farm in 2019.

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

For the flooding disaster in the huge Missouri-Mississippi Basin, all possible emergency measures must be taken to restore and rebuild damaged and destroyed infrastructure, as well as full-scale domestic support to family-farm agriculture and other sectors, and international collaboration, that violate WTO rules! A full Federal mobilization is essential for whatever can be done in the short term in the farm counties for debris clearance, stopgap levee, roadway, and rail work; and financial support measures for farms, including a moratorium on any farm foreclosures, indemnities for lost crops and livestock, credit extension, and a return to parity pricing. At the earliest time, the reinstitution of the Glass-Steagall law, re-regulation of commodity speculation, and a national infrastructure bank are crucial, not just for agriculture, but for industrial rebuilding of the nation.

An obvious infrastructure priority is to build the additional dams and structures (levees, diversion channels, etc.) needed for the full management of the Upper Missouri-Mississippi River Basins.

Look at the example of the value of spillways. One marker of this year’s massive volume of Midwest river runoff, is that the two huge diversion channels on standby on the Lower Mississippi—very seldom used—will now both be in operation as of the first week of June. On or around June 6, the Army Corps of Engineers plans to open the Morganza Spillway, marking only the third time they have done so in 46 years. The structure was opened in 1954, and used during the floods of 1973 (for 56 days) and 2011 (for 55 days). The water will spill into the Atchafalaya Basin.

USACE

The Bonnet Carré Spillway diverting excess Mississippi River flow.

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

On May 10, the Bonnet Carré Spillway was opened in Louisiana. Since its first operation in 1937, this is only the 14th time it has been used, and the second time this year (February 27 was the previous date)—a record. The water is channeled into Lake Pontchartrain, and thence into the Gulf of Mexico. Both spillways divert water away from New Orleans, which nevertheless is still under threat from the huge runoff now underway.

Leaders from many Missouri-Mississippi states have activated not only their own relief and logistics agencies—from the National Guard, to social services—but have also appealed to many federal agencies for help, including besides the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of Agriculture, the Coast Guard, the Centers for Disease Control and Protection, and more.

Public Domain/Jason Johnson

This Percival, Iowa farm is still under water on March 28, 2019, ten days after the Missouri River inundated the area.

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

Planting Is Late, Crops Are Slow

Farmers in the Midwest are now trying to make decisions on planting, re-planting, or not planting, taking into account multiple factors besides crop science, such as their crop insurance options; what the rigged “markets” will do; what their banks tell them, and what will happen to resolve the China trade conflict. The first payments from the USDA Market Mitigation Program, at so much a bushel or other production unit, is supposed to come July or August. And after that, in the fall, and next January, if “warranted” according to a May 23 White House statement. But this is a supplement to an underlying price, which may be very low. This was how the 2018 farm “Trump money” worked, as it is called.

By the end of May, planting is very limited, and crop emergence very slow. According to the May 28 weekly Crop Progress report by the USDA, the five-year average of corn planting as of May 26 would be 90% planted, with crop emergence at 69%. But as of May 26, corn is only 58% planted, and emergence is only 32%. For soybeans, as of May 26, usually 66% is planted, and 35% emerged. But this year, as of May 26, only 29% is planted, and only 11% emerged.

Thomas Holthaus

A Kansas farmer rescuing a mother cow and her newborn calf from May flooding.

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

All of the top 18 corn-producing states, which account for 92% of all U.S. corn produced, are below their five-year averages for planting and emergence. Same thing with the top 18 soybean states, which account for 95% of the U.S. soybean crop. Farmers who cannot plant corn, had until May 31 to file an insurance claim, called a “prevented planting” filing insurance claim with the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, a wholly owned government corporation managed by the Risk Management Agency of the USDA that administers the Federal crop insurance program, will get a payment from Federal Crop Insurance, if they have such a policy. They can either leave their fields fallow or sow a different, shorter-season crop, which they have to decide on, based on credit, input costs, weather and soil conditions, etc. Meantime, more rain is projected in the Plains states, and in the Western and Northern corn belt, in particular, well into June. Nebraska had snow on May 21!

The Consequences

The implications are huge. The May 20 issue of Successful Farming magazine discusses the possibility of a dramatic plunge in corn area, quoting University of Illinois economist Scott Irwin: “I think the starting point right now is a 5-million-acre reduction in corn acres.” Given that these are high-yield acres, it is a significant (6%) drop from the over 80 million acres usually planted nationwide annually in recent years. Today, the United States has the largest percent of unplanted corn acreage in its history.

To give a concrete idea of the “math” the farmer is judging, Successful Farming provides this estimate of how an Illinois corn grower can get more revenue from crop insurance, under a “prevented planting” claim than from actually growing a crop that people or livestock can eat:

Insurance payments of $331 an acre for corn and $252 an acre for soybeans. By comparison, revenue [from sale to the market] could be $153 an acre for corn and $219 an acre for soybeans due lower yields and the cost, such as fertilizer, seed, and equipment, to grow a crop.

It is not known how much or how little the farmer might get under the newly announced China-trade Market Facilitation Program payments, administered by the USDA Farm Service Agency, which is supposed to provide direct payments to eligible producers of soybeans, sorghum, corn, wheat, cotton, dairy, hogs, shelled almonds, and fresh sweet cherries. The per-unit rate will be worked out on a county-by-county basis, and the volume for which the farmer is eligible is to depend on their 2019 “market” planting decisions. Some soybean growers are rushing as fast as they can to seed as much as they can. The terrible impact of this situation, coming on top of four years of low crop prices, is seen throughout the farm states.

It’s no surprise that farm machinery sales are down. The leading U.S. equipment manufacturer, John Deere, announced May 17 that it now projects that growers will buy nearly $464 million less of Deere’s big farm equipment this year, than originally expected. Details were reported May 17 by the Quad City Times, in Moline, Deere’s headquarters. Deere’s investor liaison Josh Jepsen is quoted as saying that the company plans on scaling back production 20% at its major plants. Shipments have been down, mostly of large equipment, such as tractors and combines, so production will be lowered to levels below retail sales. While Jepsen did not specify which manufacturing centers will be affected, Deere’s large farm equipment is produced at its facilities in Waterloo, Iowa and Moline, Illinois.

—marciabaker@larouchepub.com

III. Lyndon LaRouche’s American System

ZEPP-LAROUCHE WEBCAST

Helga Zepp-LaRouche in

China: East-West Cooperation

Is the Only Way Forward

Christoph Mohs

Christoph Mohs

Helga Zepp-LaRouche in the Conference on Dialogue of Asian Civilizations.

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

This is the edited transcript of the Schiller Institute’s May 30, 2019 New Paradigm webcast with the founder of the Schiller Institutes, Helga Zepp-LaRouche. A video of the webcast is available.

Mrs. Zepp-LaRouche recently returned from a ten-day trip to China, where she delivered a number of public presentations and had many private meetings. She submitted a paper to the Dialogue of Asian Civilizations, held May 15-16 in Beijing, and was invited to speak on the topic for ten minutes. Her paper, “The Highest Ideal of Mankind Is the Potential of the Future,” was been published as part of the Conference proceedings. See EIR Vol. 46, No. 21, May 31, 2019 for the full text.

William Jones: Hello everybody. My name is Bill Jones. I’m the Washington Bureau Chief for Executive Intelligence Review. Today is May 30th, and we’ll be talking with Helga Zepp-LaRouche. Hello Helga.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: Hello!

Dialogue of Asian Civilizations

Jones: Let’s start with this trip to China that you just finished. You were a representative at the very important Conference on Dialogue of Asian Civilizations, which had been called by President Xi Jinping, with representatives from all over the world. It was an idea, I think, that he had already in 2013, when he spoke at a security conference on Asia, that he wanted a conference on Asian civilizations and their importance. And it is only now that the first major conference of this type convened, and you were invited as a guest speaker. I’d like you to give us your impressions of the conference: Who attended, were other Western representatives there? And where do they want to go from here?

Zepp-LaRouche: This was a truly remarkable conference. What became very clear is that beginning with the Belt and Road Initiative, and the Belt and Road Forums number 1 and number 2—the first one I attended two years ago—Xi Jinping is creating a completely new paradigm of international relations. This time, at this conference, the focus was on Asian civilizations. Attending were mostly Asians, some heads of state and maybe other leading institutional people; but there were also some from European governments like the President of Greece, for example.

But the main focus was Asia, Asian civilization, and what came across is that the Asians right now are very proud. There were many presentations on the fact that many of the greatest of civilizations were in Asia, in China, in India, among other Asian great civilizations, and that people are very proud.

The presentations also brought out the beauty of their cultures, their optimism, an orientation to the future. In the two-day conference, there was not one speaker from Asia who expressed any negative or dark notes. Everybody was absolutely practicing the principle of relating to the best tradition of the other, of pointing to the fact that there is no conflict which cannot be solved through dialogue instead of confrontation.

I think this is an extremely promising road for the future of international relations. And I’m pretty sure, even though it was not mentioned explicitly, that more such conferences will follow, involving other continents, like Europe, like Africa, hopefully the Americas. So I think this was really a very exciting event.

There was a cultural event, the Dialogue of Asian Civilizations Carnival, which was truly impressive! They had artistic presentations from all the different Asian countries, and on the stage were, I would guess, maybe 20,000 people. The choreography was so well-tuned, and so well done, that anybody could really see that in Asia, there’s optimism; the Asians think that their century is on the rise. And it’s not just China rising, it’s really the entire Asian continent.

Coming from Europe, I must say, I cannot over-emphasize the absolute difference between the positive attitude, the optimism for the future that you find in Asia, compared to the dilemma of the European Union, for example, or even the mood of the population in the United States, which is very, very, far from having this kind of optimistic outlook on the future.

So I think the West would do better by learning a couple of things, because Asia is doing something right. I think they are carrying out values and virtues which we used to have in the Western countries from which we have strayed, and we are experiencing the consequences of that going away from our best traditions.

Christoph Mohs

Zepp-LaRouche speaking before the Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies of Renmin University in Beijing.

Christoph Mohs

Zepp-LaRouche being interviewed by China Global Television Network (CGTN). Beside her is William Jones, EIR Bureau Chief for Washington, D.C.

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

U.S.-China Relations

Jones: It really contrasts starkly with U.S.-China relations, where this trade dispute has unfortunately been escalated over the last few days, creating a tremendous amount of tension. So, on the one hand is Asian collaboration, the Asian dialogue; and on the Western side, is the dispute ostensibly about trade. Did this cast a shadow over the conference, and how did people react to that? And what is the impression now among Chinese with regard to the possibilities of creating a working relationship with the United States?

Zepp-LaRouche: I don’t think the conference as such was so much affected. In private discussions and other meetings I had, I was really quite amazed: What had started a couple of months ago as minor trade tariff quarrels, where Trump had said he wanted to “Make America Great Again,” some people thought these were protectionist tariffs. But I think it was clear to anybody who understands what is really going on, that these were never Hamiltonian-type policies. Trump may have intended one thing, but given the fact that he is in a very complex administration, and that the U.S. security forces in the meantime, have decided to declare China an enemy, an adversary, a rival, a competitor, or a combination of all of the above, this thing has escalated.

And while in the beginning, in the trade negotiations it looked like a solution would be possible,—at least this was expressed by the Chinese and also by President Trump—this thing has gone completely out of control. And when the trade talks failed, because, apparently U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, and maybe others, included conditions unacceptable to the Chinese, which conditions would have forced China to abandon its entire model of success. That, naturally, was completely unacceptable. It became very clear that the real issue here is not protection of jobs in the United States—that may be a sub-feature for Trump—but what is really behind this attack on Huawei and on other top-level technologies of China, is the effort to contain China, to prevent its rise, to make sure that China will never pass the United States.

I think this is, first of all, a futile effort, and secondly, very dangerous. You cannot contain a country of 1.4 billion people, whose government has set the policy obviously in the right direction; otherwise, you would not have the tremendous success of the 40 years of reform and opening up, whereby 800 million or so were lifted out of poverty. And now, the Chinese model is being looked at by the developing countries as a way to overcome their own underdevelopment. Therefore, the Belt and Road Forums showed an alliance, or rather, a partnership, of 150 nations and international organizations which are all committed to the New Silk Road Spirit.

Also, China, as well as many of the other Asian countries, has a 5,000-year history! China, for example, is very proud that they invented many, many things—from gunpowder, to porcelain, to silk, to book printing, long, long before the West.

So, the idea that you can contain a nation just because it’s not Western, is a completely absurd idea, and shows you just the stupidity of those people who are pushing now the “clash of civilizations” line of Samuel Huntington. Many years ago, when Huntington wrote The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, I tortured myself to read it, and I came to the conclusion that Samuel Huntington has no idea of any of the civilizations he was talking about: not of Christianity, not of Islam, not of Hinduism, nor Buddhism or Confucianism—he just is a very superficial geopolitician who tries to play on their differences.

Above: CC/Stell; below: DoS

Above: Samuel P. Huntington; below: Dr. Kiron Skinner.

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

And I think it was noted by many scholars, and also in the Chinese media, that this woman in the U.S. State Department, the Director of Policy Planning, Kiron Skinner, who made this unbelievable, racist comment that with China, the West and the United States in particular, is confronting for the first time, a “non-Caucasian” culture or civilization. This was noted very negatively that this is an effort to go back to the confrontationist policy of Samuel Huntington.

Two Opposing World Models

So, before the world today, are two completely opposing and competing models of international politics: one is the dialogue of civilizations, which is very attractive, because it brings benefit to all participating nations; and then you have the effort to maintain a unipolar world order, based on the Anglo-American alliance, de facto, bullying countries, which does not come across very well, as the reaction to the Huawei fight shows, where 170 nations are cooperating with Huawei, because it’s the better technology.

And I think this is really something which should be reversed, because it can only lead to a dangerous development for the entire world economy. There is even talk about a complete decoupling between the U.S. and Chinese economies, a Cold War, where two completely different economic blocs would form. This would be a catastrophe for the world economy, because the West is not in a condition to maintain that. But obviously, for China and everybody else, it would also be very dramatic.

Jones: Talking about the Huawei, it seems that this is much more serious than simply the trade dispute, because it attacks the very basis of China’s development, having made headway in some of the most advanced technologies in telecommunications. Attacking Huawei is attacking the very existential basis on which China has developed. So the potential cutoff of trade, of course, is a problem, but the attack on Huawei is an existential threat to China. It seems to me, if they move forward on this, and try to cut off Huawei—with which they in general may not succeed because it has already come so far in terms of its relationship—but, continuation of that attack would, I think, wreak serious long-term damage in U.S. China relations.

Now, President Trump has made an indication that this could be a part of the trade negotiations, that is, that the attacks on Huawei could be a part of negotiating where the Chinese can continue developing in that direction. But what you’re getting out of the State Department and out of the neo-cons, is that Huawei has got to be taken out of the way, because they cannot allow any country other than the United States to be a top dog in any technological field. And of course, not only is that an attack on China, but on every other country which wants to develop and wants to become the most important country in one or another field, which is the right of every nation.

So, how do you see things if this policy doesn’t change, if it isn’t shifted, how is this going to affect U.S.-China relationships in the long term?

The Nations Ask U.S. to Join In

Zepp-LaRouche: I think there are many voices expressing concern: One is Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir bin Mohamad, who has just attended a conference in Tokyo on “The Future of Asia,” where he said that some political figures have adopted the approach, “if I’m not on top, I send warships.” This is neither negotiating nor competing. It instead had the potential to lead to military conflict.

And I think that there is no peaceful way—I mean, there have been 16 cases in history, where a second-tier country bypassed the then dominant country: 12 times it led to war; four times there was a peaceful accession to dominance by the rising country. But it should be clear to anybody that in the age of thermonuclear weapons, a conflict between the two largest economies—and China has not only a sizable nuclear force itself, but is also strategically extremely closely allied with Russia, which has made significant breakthroughs in military technology—I mean, this can only lead to the total catastrophe for all of mankind.

I think we need a chorus of people, institutions, countries, to all say: “China has made the offer to the West and to the United States repeatedly to join the Belt and Road Initiative, to have multilateral and bilateral cooperation between China and the United States, and also joint ventures in Latin America, in Africa, in Asia, in Europe; and so therefore the United States should accept this offer, and seize the enormous economic potential the Belt and Road Initiative represents for all mankind.”

Right now, I’m trying to get the idea around that more leaders should do what the President of Panama did, who said, Yes, Panama wants to cooperate with the Belt and Road Initiative, but absolutely including the United States. Something similar to that was just said by the Prime Minister of Cambodia Hun Sen, who said that Cambodia is absolutely working with China, but the U.S. policy of the Indo-Pacific should not be opposed to the Belt and Road Initiative, but should be integrated, and there should be a joint development.

DoS

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, at the Prime Minister’s office, August 3, 2018.

kremlin.ru

Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen.

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

The more leaders from developing countries, from Europe, from other peace-loving people around the world who understand that this conflict should absolutely be de-escalated, who say, we work with China and the Belt and Road Initiative, but we emphatically invite the United States to be part of it, this geopolitical thinking, this zero-sum game thinking that if one wins the other one has to lose, can be overcome, and the world can go to a completely different paradigm: namely, that if you make the cake bigger by focussing on the joint programs for the future, everybody can win.

Opportunity for Good at the G20

And I think between now and the G20 Summit at the end of June, the more people who join in and demand that the United States become part of this Belt and Road Initiative, I think, the better. Because I think President Trump still talks about Xi Jinping as his “good friend,” and he does have a positive image of China, which he has expressed many times. So I think if we get to the G20 summit, where hopefully there will be also a summit between President Trump and President Xi Jinping, and maybe also President Putin, that if we meanwhile have a mobilization of the whole world’s population to say that we must have a new paradigm of international relations, we have a chance of overcoming this geopolitical outlook.

Jones: Signals from both sides indicate that there will be a meeting of President Trump and President Xi at the G20 meeting in Osaka, Japan on June 28-29. What do you think President Xi can do, what can he offer President Trump, consistent with maintaining the dignity of China, to get him off of this path of a trade war? What proposal do you think he could make that maybe could win the U.S. President over to another direction in policy towards China?

Trump Is Otherwise Quite Stuck

Zepp-LaRouche: If you look at the situation of President Trump in the United States—and we should talk about that a little bit later—he is quite stuck. On the one side, the Mueller report produced no evidence for any “collusion” with Russia, but that does not prevent Mueller from constantly keeping at it, and even calling on the Democrats more or less to go for impeachment. Then the Democrats, joining in that. Obviously, if you have that going on, then the possibility of a joint infrastructure program for the United States, the chances of getting any kind of financing for it, appear almost non-existent.

So, China could really show, and President Xi Jinping could really show what the world could look like in a few years, if there would be a joint cooperation: There’s either a new study from some British institution which says that the annual increase in production will be $7 trillion even if the United States does not join, and the economic benefits for the United States just coming from this increased trade around the world are overwhelming. So I think this would be the case all the more if you had a positive attitude, and American corporations could join, and this could also lead to the U.S. recovering.

The U.S. doesn’t have a full, global industrial supply chain anymore, because of many years of outsourcing and destruction of the middle-level industries. So the United States needs, really, a change in the direction that Trump wants, but I think China could extend a helping hand, because of the internal mess in the United States.

And I’m confident, I’m pretty sure, that Chinese scholars are working around the clock to come up with solutions to overcome that, because it’s very clear that China does not want to have this trade war, because it has a tremendous risk for not only China, but for the whole world economy. So, I think the more people demand that the United States should cooperate, especially in the development of Latin America, of Africa, reconstruction of the Middle East, the better it is.

Whither Mexico and Latin America?

Jones: So the support for the Belt and Road coming from Latin America, and most recently, of course, Mexican President López Obrador has indicated a positive attitude towards it. But they are really under a lot of pressure: It seems like the United States is reviving the old Teddy Roosevelt policy of using the club on the Latin American nations to prevent, in this case, development in Latin America.

How do you see the situation moving in that region of the world?

President of Mexico

Andres Manuel López Obrador, President of Mexico.

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

Zepp-LaRouche: Well, you had all kinds of representatives of the U.S. administration, such as Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and National Security Advisor John Bolton, who all told the Latin American countries very explicitly, that they should not cooperate with China. They quote the Monroe Doctrine, but what they really refer to is the Theodore Roosevelt corollary to it, and I think it’s very important that people study the difference: Because the original doctrine was the policy of John Quincy Adams of an alliance of perfectly sovereign republics, and the “corollary” is an imperial policy of Teddy Roosevelt. People mix those up a lot.

In that context, there is a tremendous opportunity in the recent visit to Washington by Mexico’s Foreign Minister, Marcelo Ebrard. He met with Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan, senior Trump advisor Jared Kushner, and the Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen, and he repeated what President López Obrador had already proposed several times, namely that the United States should join in a large investment program, especially in the south of Mexico, in Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala, bringing in trains, developing ports, electricity grids, pipelines, industrial parks, agriculture, to bring about economic development.

Government of Mexico

Marcelo Ebrard, Foreign Secretary of Mexico.

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

Ebrard spoke about a “Marshall Plan” for that region. Because that way, you would create an incentive for the migrants who are now desperately trying get across the border to the United States, to instead stay in their home countries. That this is the only way to stop the migration crisis for the United States.

Ebrard was talking about $20 billion investment from Mexico, another $20 billion from the Central American countries, and then requiring $5.6 billion from the side of the United States, which Trump already had talked about and sort of promised last December. So I think if President Trump would respond to this positively, this would be a very good step in the right direction. It would be in the direction of the cooperation which my husband, Lyndon LaRouche, had proposed almost 30 years ago, in collaboration with then President López Portillo—the famous Operation Juárez economic development program for Latin America—and it would be a first step in the direction of the United States cooperating with the Belt and Road Initiative idea.

I think this should be absolutely supported. Bringing development to these poor countries is the only way to stop the migration in a human way.

Jones: It would also be going back to the type of Alliance for Progress program that President John Kennedy had, when we had much better relations with these Latin American countries.

The European Union Elections

Let me shift over to Europe, now, Helga, with regard to the support for the Belt and Road Initiative that’s been coming from a lot of the European countries, especially spearheaded by the Italian government. We’ve also had European Parliament (EU) elections, and we’re getting different interpretations of that: On the one side, some people are saying that the new parties in Europe, the parties that have been in revolt against the “business as usual” of the EU, have moved ahead; on the other hand are those who are saying that the center-liberal coalitions have maintained their power. What is the situation most specifically? What is the effect of these elections on the Belt and Road Initiative and the European support for it?

kremlin.ru

Marine Le Pen, President of France’s National Rally political party.

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

Zepp-LaRouche: The Belt and Road Initiative is supported by most European countries—22 of the 28 EU member-states cooperating. The Eastern and Central European countries, plus Italy, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, Austria. So it is actually moving forward.

The anti-EU parties have won in the elections, not a sweep as was expected, but they are definitely rising. The Brexit Party in Great Britain got something like 38% and the Tories collapsed to 7%! Now, that is quite telling. Also, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally party won more than President Emmanuel Macron’s La République En Marche in France. But the real disaster happened in Germany. I must say, this is an example of meddling in the internal affairs of a country, if I have ever seen one! What happened was, you had a buildup of the Greta Thunberg school boycott climate campaign.

James Rae

Greta Thunberg

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

Pied Piper in Pigtails

Thunberg has been a rather busy Swedish 16-year-old. She was invited to the COP24 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Katowice, Poland; then she addressed the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland; then she travelled to Rome, where she addressed a big rally in front of the parliament and met with Pope Francis. She then went to Great Britain, met the Queen, and addressed the House of Commons. So she got a play-up. She was in Germany several times.

This all led to the “Friday For Future” demonstrations which created really a hysteria among teenagers, saying “Oh, Greta Thunberg and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, they are all saying the world will end in 12 years, so why should I keep learning?” So it led to this whole hysteria.

There are also studies out which show that the excessive consumption of digital devices, from smartphones, Play Stations, tablet computers, has severe neurological effects on the brains of the people who use them, and that young people are more likely to look at their smartphones than talk face to face with their neighbor, so their judgments of history, of natural science, are very poorly developed. That is without question. So you can almost call this child abuse, because if you hype people up this way, you get these results.

The Rezo Media Operation

Now, there was a special operation, just a couple of days before the election: A video appeared by a so-called “YouTube influencer” called Rezo, who made a devastating attack on the main parties in Germany. They have done badly on every point, he said, and really tore into them. And then he said, “You have to vote only for the party which is taking care of the climate protection,” and that for sure had an impact, especially on the youth vote and first-time voters.

The end result was that the Greens are now the second largest party in Germany, which means that Germany as an industrial nation is finished, because the Green policies are completely incompatible with Germany as an industrial nation. So this is definitely a huge existential crisis. The Greens won 9 out of the 10 major cities—they got something like 32% in Cologne, 31% in Hamburg, in Munich, in Frankfurt, and similar results elsewhere. In Berlin, the Greens got almost as much as the CDU and the SPD combined, so it’s really a landslide.

And the reason I say this is meddling, is that, if you think this video was merely one young man attacking the leading parties on his own, you obviously don’t know that he is a “YouTube influencer,” and how this works. Some people know what that is: A YouTube influencer usually promotes lipstick or various cosmetics—which promotions are financed by the firms that benefit. Large PR firms sponsor the products advertised. The firm that sponsored this YouTube influencer, Rezo, is called “Ströer,” a digital multi-channel media company, which owns T-Online, Germany’s biggest news portal and other outlets. This was then played up by all the mass media as if it was just this young man, who finally gave the bill to these parties.

But the difference is—I mean, I’m an influencer, you are an influencer—but the difference is that nobody pays us to get our messages out, and when someone puts out a political message and orchestrates the mass media to amplify it, right before an election, you get this kind of result. Now, I think this was a classic case of meddling. This kind of PR operation is not a German thing, and it’s not in any way fair play, nor in accordance with the rules of the election process.

This is really bad, and unfortunately, I think that Germany will have to feel some of the economic consequences before reason returns.

Now, fortunately, this is not the whole story: There are now many people in medium-level industries who want to join the Belt and Road Initiative. The Institute for Economic Research in Munich has just issued a statement that cooperation with China is very advantageous for Bavaria, so it’s not the end of the story. But I really think Europe is in absolutely critical condition; it’s disunited. North-South, East-West conflicts are severe. And I think the only thing which can unify Europe, is the cooperation with the Belt and Road Initiative, and hopefully some people of influence will get that idea that the consequences otherwise would be a Weimarization of the entire European continent. And hopefully reason can return, maybe even by the time of the G20 summit on June 28-29.

Trump Impeached? Coup Plotters Jailed?

Jones: Switching over now to the situation in the United States, you no doubt saw that Special Counsel Robert Mueller presented his Swan Song yesterday, but he couldn’t help but leave a last bit of excrescence to the Washington media, in more or less throwing the whole issue of the so-called “collusion” into the assembly of the U.S. Congress. So the drumbeat for a Trump impeachment drive is now becoming much louder. The more attuned people in the political realm, including Nancy Pelosi, really understand that this could be the death knell of the Democratic Party, ruin any chance they have for winning the next Presidential election, and probably suffer major losses in the House of Representatives.

But it has created a situation in which nothing can really be done to address the economic situation in the United States. President Trump’s attempt to come to a compromise with the leaders of the Congress on the infrastructure question has been destroyed, while impeachment is now becoming a major drumbeat among some Democrats. Given the situation now, with flooding in the Missouri-Mississippi River Basins—really the whole Midwest—it’s not a question simply of “infrastructure investment”: it’s now reached a crisis situation, of meeting the total devastation of the infrastructure there and saving people’s lives. But the government is in gridlock as a result of the impeachment war cry.

How can we change the situation here, and how do you view the situation now with regard to the U.S. economic direction?

Zepp-LaRouche: I think the Democrats and the intelligence service heads left over from the Obama Administration are extremely panicked, because, after all, Trump issued a memorandum authorizing Attorney General William Barr to declassify all documents relating to the meddling in the 2016 presidential campaign. There was a very interesting program on Fox TV, the Hannity show, discussing that U.S. intelligence outsourced dirty operations of spying in the 2016 campaign, to British intelligence, to Australian intelligence, and that that all has to be investigated. And there was even a demand that former MI6 agent Christopher Steele, who is at the center of this operation, be extradited to the United States, since he refuses to cooperate with Barr—he only wants to cooperate with Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz.

So I think the climate is such that these people who did the coup attempt against Trump, are now afraid that any such declassification and continuing investigation of the investigators, will bring forth incredible things, criminal things, maybe things which they have to fear, such as going to jail. I think the frenzy is just incredible, especially also with the 2020 Presidential election approaching.

USDA/Bill Luckey

Bill Luckey assesses flood damage to his farm in Columbus, Nebraska in March 2019.

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

Midwest Flooding Continues

There is really a crisis of a different kind happening in the United States. You mentioned the flooding in the Midwest—this affects lots of agricultural products, soybeans, this affects the world production of corn; the United States produces a very large quantity of the world’s corn [maize], and these regions in the Midwest and also the South, have been flooded for months now.

I think the only way to go about it, would be to go on a bipartisan mobilization to implement the Four Laws defined by Lyndon LaRouche in June 2014: Go for Glass-Steagall; go for a national bank; a new credit institution; a crash program for the increase of the productivity of the economy, as it is possible with the space program put on the agenda by President Trump. But the space program alone doesn’t do it; you need the full package designed by my husband, including a New Bretton Woods international credit program, because a new financial crash is hanging over our heads like a Damocles Sword.

So I think Americans had better start to get away from this partisan approach, because if you only hack away at the other to diminish their election chances, and you forget the common good, then the common good suffers. And I think the United States is not in safe waters, at all.

Only the package of Lyndon LaRouche’s Four Laws, and the cooperation with the Belt and Road Initiative, internationally, where the United States would take a role in shaping the future, not just being part of it, will work. Go back to the American Revolution, go back to the ideas of Benjamin Franklin, of the Founding Fathers, of John Quincy Adams, I think there must be a national debate which goes a little bit deeper than the present hysteria orchestrated by the mass media. So, I think there is an absolute need to go to a higher paradigm of thinking.

Jones: This is the ideal opportunity, now, with all the memorials that are being held for Mr. LaRouche worldwide, just most recently in Yemen, but also in Latin America. There will be memorials here next month in the United States. Reviving the tradition, the ideas, and the life of Mr. LaRouche can create a different atmosphere in the United States, create a pathway for President Trump to move in that direction.

Exonerate Lyndon LaRouche!

Helga, you’re calling for President Trump to exonerate Lyndon LaRouche to clear him of all the lying accusations that led to his imprisonment for five years. Some of the same people who have been after the President of the United States, including Robert Mueller, and others, were involved in attempting to destroy LaRouche. If Trump could be brought to understand that, the entire situation might change.

So, I think the possibility of moving in the direction of the Four Laws of LaRouche is much greater today, because his tradition, his ideas will now be revived on a higher level as a result of all the activity that’s going on. Maybe you want to say something about that exoneration campaign?

Zepp-LaRouche: Yes, I want to say this in conclusion: That the most important thing, you, our viewers and audience, can actually do, is to help in this exoneration campaign. There is no greater contradiction between the beauty and wealth of the ideas of Lyndon LaRouche and the picture which has been painted by this apparatus that is now perpetrating the witch hunt against Trump. Ironically, now, the Chinese are saying, “Here Trump is complaining that behind Russiagate is a witch hunt, but now, the United States is committing a witch hunt against China, with China being the victim.” So you have three victims of a witch hunt: My husband, President Trump, and China—and it comes from the same people. It comes from people who absolutely want to suppress a New Paradigm.

I have said it before, but let me restate it: The exoneration of my husband is important, so that people may have an unrestricted, unprejudiced view of the solutions he presented. I’m absolutely convinced that his exoneration is almost the precondition for the United States to stop the policy of international confrontation, of being in cahoots with the British Empire. Only when you shed that kind of geopolitical thinking, and look at the solutions presented by Lyndon LaRouche, can you come to a solution on a higher level.

So I urge all of you: Join in our mobilization and get in touch with us. We are doing a lot of important things, and I think that’s the best thing you can do for yourself, your country, and all of humanity.

Jones: With that, Helga, I think we’ll conclude. Thank you for taking the time today to be with us, and hope to see you again, soon.

Zepp-LaRouche: Till soon!

November 30, 2000

In the Footsteps of John Quincy Adams

My Strategy for the Americas

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

President John Quincy Adams

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

The combination of the current election crisis inside the U.S.A., with the immediately ongoing onrush of the greatest, global financial collapse in all history, has created a situation within the Americas which can be fairly described in the following words.

I know, from my highly placed informants in the governments, and in other relevant positions throughout the hemisphere, that we are gripped presently by a situation, in which none of the present governments of the Americas, the United States included, has the slightest conception of the realities which will face their respective nations, six months from now. Indeed, had the leading circles of the U.S. not been stubbornly ignorant in such matters, the Presidential candidacies of neither Gov. George W. Bush nor Vice President Al Gore would have existed on Nov. 7th.

In this situation, a certain unique responsibility has fallen to me. This obligation includes debt to old friends, such as the late former President Arturo Frondizi of Argentina, among many other old friends who are presently either deceased or still living, with whom I have shared a common concern in these and related matters over a period of decades. Recent circumstances, including the general discredit of my factional adversaries within the U.S. Democratic Party, and the spectacular vindication of my often rejected warnings respecting the world’s current financial and economic situation, have put into my hands a special kind of authority, within my own U.S.A., and internationally. With that added authority, there is a certain accompanying responsibility. It is their implied will that I speak now of certain matters in a certain way.

As the only public figure to be seen in any part of the world, who has accurately forecast publicly, and repeatedly, the exact nature of the currently onrushing, planet-wide collapse of the existing world monetary system, I must use the relatively unique knowledge and related political qualifications typified by that accomplishment, to set before all of the nations of the Americas a perspective which corresponds to the presently erupting realities of the situation now confronting each and all among them, my own crisis-torn U.S.A. included.

On this matter, I have already set forth my designs for specifically economic and related measures, in published locations which had been rather widely circulated among leading circles around the world today, if not the popular mass media. Therefore, to this, my intended present audience, it were sufficient that I limit myself to focus upon certain extremely urgent strategic points which were not likely to be presented from other sources.

I begin by viewing the present world situation from the standpoint of the legacy and also those deeper historical roots of the U.S. Monroe Doctrine of 1823, which are of urgent relevance for the presently escalating crisis in the relations among the nations of the Americas.

1.0 The Legacy of the Monroe Doctrine

Granted, all educated political figures of this hemisphere, are familiar with what has been a troubled continuity in the policy of all patriots of the U.S.A. toward the other nations of the Americas, since then Secretary of State John Quincy Adams designed the famous 1823 policy adopted by President James Monroe, the so-called Monroe Doctrine.

Nonetheless, unfortunately, some well-meaning but ignorant, and also other myth-makers from among the ideologues of Central and South America have polluted the environment of this discussion, by professing themselves to see a malicious intent within the Monroe Doctrine. Those myths have contributed significantly to the advantage of Ibero-America’s lusting adversaries. The truth must be emphasized, to clear the air. Without that clearing of the air of such myths, no solution for the current plight of the states of Central and South America were likely. What must be urgently reaffirmed among us is fairly summed up as follows.

It is known to those figures throughout the Americas, that the Monroe Doctrine was adopted in defiance of the leading European enemies of both the U.S.A. and of all of the emerging young republics of Central and South America. These enemies were, chiefly, both the British monarchy and the Habsburg-denominated forces of the so-called Holy Alliance. Those enemies, in those same or other disguises, are the only significant enemies of the states of Central and South America, both within and outside our republics, and inside the U.S.A. itself, still today.

There are some parts of that legacy of the Monroe Doctrine, which should have been more or less widely known, and which must be restated now, as indispensable for defining the basis for relations among the nations of the hemisphere today. I emphasize these points and their connection to the present situation.

The most important of the currently relevant, crucial points made by Adams, were two. First, the notion that a community of principle was the proper basis for all relations among the U.S.A. and all of the emerging republics of the Americas. Second, that although the U.S. refused to degrade itself to the role of a “cock boat in the wake of a British man of war,” in Britain’s neo-colonialist depredations against the emerging republics of the Americas, the U.S.A. did not have the power, at that time, to challenge Britain’s predatory practices directly with military force. However, as soon as the U.S. had such power, there should be an enforced end to the role of both Habsburg-denominated and British imperial ambitions in the affairs of all parts of the Americas.

The late Argentine President Arturo Frondizi (left), March 29, 1992, at the entrance to the prison where he was incarcerated, after being overthrown in a military coup exactly 30 years before.

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

The United States’ violation of its own fundamental principle and treaty-law, as that principle is expressed by the Monroe Doctrine, in supporting the British monarchy in the Malvinas War of 1982, is the watershed from which the presently ongoing, recent ruin of both the U.S.A. and the nations to its south, has been brought about.

I address leading points concerning the second of those two points, and, after that, turn to the first.

President Theodore Roosevelt (left), plotting against Ibero-America. After the assassination of President Kennedy in 1963, the racist legacy of Roosevelt took over once again in American foreign policymaking.

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

1.1 The War Between Patriots and Treason Inside the U.S.A.

Admittedly, the treasonous faction, of combined Wall Street and slaveholder interests in the U.S.A. itself, such as the leadership of the U.S. Democratic Party of Presidents Jackson, van Buren, Polk, Pierce, and Buchanan, had followed a policy contrary to the Monroe Doctrine. That Party was the leading adversary of a contrary, patriotic tradition maintained by the circles of John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, the Careys, and Abraham Lincoln, through and beyond 1848, continuing from Lincoln’s Presidency until the election of Wall Street Democrat Grover Cleveland as President.

Unfortunately, even after Lincoln’s great, hard-fought victory over the British monarchy’s puppet, the Confederacy, those Democratic and Republican parties’ factions representing the same alliance of Wall Street and slaveholder traditions, as typified, in more recent times, by Presidents Cleveland, Wilson, Coolidge, Nixon, Carter, and Bush, have represented a return to the same implicitly treasonous policies as the leadership of the Democratic Party of the period prior to Lincoln’s victory. With the exception of the Presidencies of Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy, the treasonous faction’s policies had prevailed since that 1901 assassination of President William McKinley which brought the British Fabian Society-linked Theodore Roosevelt into the Presidency.

During the Twentieth Century, the resumption of the policies of Adams, Monroe, and Lincoln, characterized the famous “Good Neighbor Policy” and the solemn treaty-agreements established under a great patriot of the U.S.A., President Franklin Roosevelt. Franklin Roosevelt’s policy was revived, once again, if briefly, by President John F. Kennedy’s “Alliance for Progress.”

Any competent diplomatic or other assessment of U.S. foreign policy today, must be premised on understanding the following turn back to pro-racist and neo-liberal policies in the U.S. today.

Unfortunately, in the aftermath of the successful assassination of President Kennedy, the revival of the racist legacy of Presidents Cleveland, Theodore Roosevelt, and Ku Klux Klan enthusiast Woodrow Wilson, took over once again. This latter turn began with the 1966 launching of former Vice President Richard Nixon’s partnership with the Ku Klux Klan and kindred types, the 1966 launching of the Nixon “Southern Strategy.” The assumption of the Presidency by Jimmy Carter, expressed the process of takeover over the Democratic Party’s dominant machinery, by forces of the same ideological composition, and with the same orientation as the Nixon Southern Strategy.

Since the establishment of the “Southern Strategy’s” top-down, Tweedledee-Tweedledum control over the machines of both leading parties, with the 1982 installation of Project Democracy and U.S. violation of the Rio and other treaties in the case of the Malvinas War, the policies of the U.S.A. toward the other states of the Americas has returned fully to the tradition of such British agents and U.S. traitors as that uncle and political mentor of Theodore Roosevelt, Captain James Bulloch, the notorious Caribbean filibusterer who became the head of the Confederate intelligence service based in London.

Especially since 1989, U.S. policy toward the Americas has become worse than even the earlier overt treason to the hemisphere by Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.

Henry Kissinger at the State Department in 1983. His Anglophile and Malthusian policies are still gutting the nations of Ibero-America today.

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

The current policy is based on the Nazi-like, Malthusian population doctrines, such as the notorious U.S. National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM-200), which had been set forth in 1974 by then Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger, or the pro-drug-legalization policies, copied from Lord Palmerston’s China policy, which are gutting the nations of Ibero-America today. That is already bad, but it is far worse.

With the collapse of Soviet power which ricocheted from the 1989 collapse of the East German Erich Honecker regime, the Anglo-American forces, represented at that time by British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, France’s President François Mitterrand, and U.S. President George Bush, reduced other members of the NATO alliance rapidly to the lowest rank of satrapy status, as was done with Mrs. Thatcher’s “Desert Storm” war against Iraq. These former NATO allies were dumped into the status of virtual colonial subjects of an English-speaking, global tyranny. Nazi-like Malthusian policies consistent with those of Kissinger’s NSSM-200, and of the British monarchy’s Prince Philip and Prince Charles, are currently the hegemonic policies of today’s collapsing, English-speaking world empire.

Thus, a pro-Malthusian, virtual world-dictatorship, was established by the relevant English-speaking powers, with the U.S. operating as the designated chief military policeman, the British monarchy’s perennial “dumb giant,” the rule which Mrs. Thatcher applied to her lackey, U.S. President George Bush. This was done under the virtual merger of the state authorities of the U.S.A. with the British monarchy’s personal state properties, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. The result has been the establishment, under the Romantic slogan of “globalization,” of a virtual new, world-wide Roman Empire, one based on the virtual merger of the relevant, sundry state and supranational bureaucracies with a global rentier-financier oligarchical interest.

Now, slightly more than ten years since the Thatcher-Mitterrand-Bush actions setting up that new empire, that empire is now in the process of disintegrating. The Presidential election-crisis which erupted inside the U.S.A. on Nov. 7, 2000, can not be competently understood except in those terms of reference.

Like all doomed empires of the past, this one tends to be most savage, most ruthless, and most dangerous for the short term, at the moment it is dying, when its ruling circles become increasingly desperate, increasingly incompetent, and increasingly decadent. It is in these circumstances that we have reached the point, that, of all of the nations of Central and South America, at this moment of global crisis, only Brazil still retains a significant, if dwindling amount of its sovereign authority in its own territory.

Such are today’s relevant highlights of the past, often ugly, even murderous policies of the U.S.A.’s Wall Street-led factions toward the states of Central and South America.

For Ibero-America, a collapse of that power would come as a blessing, if that were the extent of the damage. However, for the U.S.A. and its people, too, a crash of that imperial power would be no calamity, provided that were the extent of the damage. On the good side, it would be the opportunity for us to resume our ancient sovereignty and freedom, liberated from the beast which a usurping, tyrannical alliance between a now hopelessly bankrupt Wall Street and its racist Southern Strategy confederates, has put upon our backs, as also upon yours. In such a circumstance, it would be our patriots’ more or less automatic impulse to return to the principles exemplified by the Monroe Doctrine. Only a profound crisis could bring about such a change, but that would be only typical of the way great changes, for better or for worse, have usually occurred.

That would provide us the opportunity to make the necessary changes, but the changes we must make must be the proper choice.

Taking into account all of the many, and vast uncertainties which the presently ongoing world-wide, and presently inevitable financial collapse brings upon the world, one thing is absolutely certain: Nearly everything is about to change in the most sweeping way. What remains undecided, is whether the changes will be for the better, or very much for the worse. The only important question, is whether this present crisis is the beginning of a global renaissance of civilization, or the onset of a planet-wide new dark age to last for a generation or more to come.

Any contrary view of the present situation, in any part of the Americas, is a delusion.

1.2 Five Centuries in the Americas

Throughout Central and South America, many silly things have been often said about the great Yankee republic to the north. Now, we have reached the point, that all such silly myths must be pushed to one side, because, under the world economic conditions determined by the present global financial collapse, unless we can bring the U.S.A. to play the kind of role which John Quincy Adams defined in his drafting of the Monroe Doctrine, there is no realistic hope for any among the states of the Americas during the decades immediately ahead.

There is a certain specific uniqueness in the coming into being of the U.S.A. during 1776-1789. The U.S. is an historical exception, but not of the kind President Theodore Roosevelt’s myth-makers claimed it to be. The key to the actual historical exception, the great benefit to all humanity, in the creation of the U.S. republic, is specifically the following.

Following the terrible New Dark Age of Europe’s Fourteenth Century, a great Renaissance erupted in Fifteenth-Century Europe, a Golden Renaissance based upon the Christian adoption of the legacy of Classical Greece and the work of Plato, a renaissance typified by the work and influence of the greatest single figure of that century, the Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa who had played a crucial organizing role in bringing into being the great ecumenical Council of Florence, and whose work founded the modern sovereign nation-state and established the principles of experimental physical science from which modern scientific and technological progress received its impetus.

Among the great causes to which that great Cardinal contributed a key role, was the establishment of new nations in the Americas. Through the work of Cusa and his close associates, great voyages of evangelization were launched, to the purpose of reaching across the great oceans to the peoples in lands beyond. The work of Christopher Columbus was directly a product of the encouragement, and technical assistance from the immediate circles of Cusa, and of the collaborators and other supporters of Cusa’s efforts in Italy, Portugal, and Spain. From this seed, sent out from Italy’s Fifteenth-Century Renaissance, the Americas acquired the premises for what John Quincy Adams defined as the community of principle underlying the 1823 Monroe Doctrine.

No competent statesman today will deny, ignore, or belittle the fact, that the modern sovereign nation-state republic first came into existence, brought forth by the circles of Cusa, during that Fifteenth Century, and that this form of state was a revolutionary change in all existing world history up to that time. When the leaders of that renaissance were prevented from establishing such a republic in Italy, they established the first modern nation-state in Louis XI’s France, and the second in Henry VII’s England. Spain’s Queen Isabella I contributed a special role in spreading this revolution into the Americas. It was in that century, thus, that a new principle of statecraft was established in the world, the notion that, under natural law, no government has legitimate authority to rule except as it is efficiently committed to promote what is known by names such as the general welfare, or common good, for all of the people and their posterity.

The idea that the world must be governed by a community of sovereign nation-state republics based on that principle, had been set forth in Nicholas of Cusa’s Concordantia Catholica. The principle of scientific progress was introduced to Europe during the period of the great Florence Council, by Cusa’s De Docta Ignorantia, the work on which the subsequent development of all valid modern science has been premised. The combination of these two policies, of the sovereign nation-state republic based on a commitment to promotion of the general welfare through the indispensable means of scientific and technological progress, has been the essence of every success in service of the common good, in the development of morally acceptable forms of nation-states among the nations of the Americas, from Columbus’ discovery, to the present day.

From the beginning, this great revolution in statecraft and public morality had powerful adversaries, within Europe, and, soon, within the Americas. These adversaries were none other than the tools of that old feudal order which had plunged Europe into the terrible New Dark Age of the Fourteenth Century: the combination of the forces of a feudalism based upon the heritage of pagan Roman law and the quality of rentier-financier oligarchy typified by a Venice which had risen to the status of a hegemonic form of imperial maritime power during the early Thirteenth Century.

These latter forces, the enemies of the Renaissance, sought to crush the benefits of the Fifteenth-Century Renaissance by the most hideous of weapons, the orchestration of the recurring religious warfare concocted and directed by Venice, from the early years of the Sixteenth Century, until the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia.

Under these circumstances of the Sixteenth through Eighteenth Centuries, the possibility of maintaining forms of nation-states such as those seen for a time in Louis XI’s France and Henry VII’s England, virtually vanished from Europe, until the brief period of leadership of France by Cardinal Jules Mazarin and his associate Jean-Baptiste Colbert.

Under the conditions thus prevailing in Europe, the immediate hope for building truly sovereign nation-state republics, lay in the colonies in the Americas. Despite the blessed impulses of Emperor Joseph II, for reason of the combined overreach of British and Habsburg power into the Americas, it was only in the English-speaking colonies of North America that the establishment of a republic became possible during the course of the Eighteenth Century, despite notable, frustrated efforts to do so elsewhere. From the middle of the Eighteenth Century, until the British Foreign Office-directed Paris event of July 14, 1789, all of the leading intellectual forces of continental Europe were rallied either in support, or significant sympathy for the cause of Benjamin Franklin’s efforts to bring such a republic into being.

That trace, from the Fifteenth-Century Renaissance and its great ecumenical Council of Florence, is, in essentials, the true nature of the historical exception which can and must be attributed to the U.S. 1776-1783 War of Independence, the Benjamin Franklin-directed Declaration of Independence, and to the Preamble of the U.S. 1789 Constitution.

Then the Jacobin Terror of 1789-1794, which had been directed, from the beginning, by Jeremy Bentham’s British Foreign Office, had stripped the young U.S. republic of its chief powerful ally, France: a France fallen prey to that first modern fascist, Napoleon Bonaparte, who had become the new tyrannical Caesar of continental Europe, was our mortal enemy. In that circumstance, for a time, the U.S.A. was condemned to that terrible state of combined menace and isolation from friends, against which U.S. President George Washington had warned, as the reason to avoid entanglements in the internal affairs of a Europe in such a condition, at that time.

So, the U.S.A. found itself in the period following the 1814-1815 Congress of Vienna, a period in which the forces of Metternich’s Holy Alliance and Bentham’s British monarchy were determined, in common, to conquer and ruin the emerging nations of both North and South America. It was in this period, that forces led by President James Monroe, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Henry Clay, Mathew Carey, and others, formulated that new strategic outlook for all of the Americas which was expressed in what is known as the Monroe Doctrine.

Since that time, all intelligent and informed patriots of the U.S.A. have regarded the unity of interest among the republics of the Americas as the first line of security for each of those republics.

Respecting the politics of the U.S.A. over the period since, the chief source of deviation from the long-range strategic principle set forth in the 1823 Monroe Doctrine, has been the recurring ascent to leading power within the U.S. by two packs of treasonous rascals, the unholy combination of the Wall Street rentier-oligarchical interest represented by British Foreign Office asset Aaron Burr of the Bank of Manhattan, and the slaveholder interest represented by the Confederacy created in the U.S. by the Giuseppe Mazzini Young America association of Jeremy Bentham’s successor, Lord Palmerston. That was the interest against which President Lincoln led the greatest war in U.S.A. history, the Civil War, the treasonous interest represented by U.S. Presidents Grover Cleveland, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Calvin Coolidge, and, since the launching of the racist alliance called the “Southern Strategy,” by Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, and George Bush. That latter alliance of Wall Street and racist currents, is the interest represented, however poorly, by candidates George W. Bush and Al Gore today.

The Southern Strategy in 1969: President Richard Nixon receives Texas Congressman George Bush at the White House.

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

These are the forces from within the U.S.A. against which all patriots of the republics of Central and South America should be warned today; this is the anaconda whose loving embrace is to be avoided by those who prefer to remain among the living.

As it should be evident to all knowledgeable figures of the Americas today, a strong partnership between the patriots of the U.S.A. and the republics of Central and South America, is the first line of defense of the national security of each. Without the role of the U.S.A. as a partner of the kind prescribed by the Monroe Doctrine, the security of each and every other nation of the Americas would remain in doubt at any time a strategically perilous state of affairs existed in the world at large. The experience of the recent two hundred years has demonstrated this, repeatedly, to be the case, up to the present moment.

What I have thus just summarized as that lesson from history, must be the bedrock of U.S. foreign policy and related practice, and must be so understood by the patriots of every other nation of the Americas. As for the rest of the world, if we in the Americas adopt policies by which we do good on one another’s behalf, the world at large has nothing to fear from us.

Thus, the birth of the sovereign U.S. republic in the Americas, was hailed by all of the greatest poets and others of Europe as the establishment of a new state which would function as “a temple of liberty and beacon of hope for all mankind.” Those of us who know the actual history of the recent five centuries of today’s globally extended modern European civilization, know that this achievement was the fruit of a great revolution in statecraft, and in the condition of mankind, which was begun within Italy as the great Fifteenth-Century Golden Renaissance. This was not an achievement which sprang from the soil or other internal circumstances of the North American continent; it was a gift bestowed upon, and entrusted to the thus-imperilled U.S.A., by all that was good in the full extent of European civilization.

2.0 The Defense of the Americas

A great issue was resolved in principle by the Golden Renaissance and its promotion of the modern sovereign form of nation-state republic. With the establishment of France under Louis XI as the first modern nation-state, a form of society was set into motion on the principle of the general welfare. The first duty of such a state, as Louis XI pursued that goal, was to end the kind of political system in which the majority of the subject population were degraded to the status of virtual human cattle. Notably, this policy is directly opposite to the evil, pro-feudalist doctrine of the later Enlightenment’s notorious Dr. François Quesnay and other Physiocrats, which proposed to perpetuate forever the status of serfs as that of inhuman cattle.

Thus, from the beginning, the adversarial relationship which existed between the U.S. republic, on the one side, and the British monarchy and, excepting Austria’s Joseph II and his like, the Habsburg interests, on the other, was an irreconcilable difference of principle respecting the distinction between human beings and cattle. Although Christ’s mission, like that of such notable Apostles as John and Paul, redeemed all persons as made equally in the image of the Creator of the universe, that Christian principle was systemically violated in practice by the pagan Roman and Byzantine law, such as the law of the Emperor Diocletian. This same violation was the essence of a medieval European tradition of feudalism premised upon the legacy of Romantic custom.

The Southern Strategy in 1990: President George Bush receives former President Jimmy Carter at the White House.

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

The feudal and other oligarchical interests of Europe professed themselves Christian, but, in the practice of statecraft, they were chiefly all, like Bernard Mandeville, Adam Smith, and their present-day followers, theologically bogomils at heart.

It was only through the impact of the organizing around the Council of Florence, that a revolutionary new form of society came into being, one in which no government had the legitimate authority to rule, except as it efficiently served the principle of the general welfare.

From the beginning, even prior to the Fifteenth-Century Renaissance, the enemy of mankind has been what was known to ancient times as “the oligarchical principle.” Under that principle, the power to establish law was conferred on either an emperor, as typified by the pagan Roman doctrine of Pontifex Maximus, or some agency performing that same function. Even kings were mere agents of such a supreme imperial or kindred lawgiver. Such was the prevalent understanding of law under feudalism, and has been the basis for similar perversions under systems of financier-oligarchical rule, up to the present day.

This point of law is crucial for understanding the conflict which has dominated globally extended modern European society from the beginning. The pivotal issue is the matter of the definitions of the nature of the human individual and of mankind, under law. That is, therefore, the fundamental issue in defining law itself.

The primary question of all statecraft, is: What is the nature of the human individual? In other words, is man simply a talking species of beast, or does the human individual possess an inborn quality which sets him or her absolutely apart from, and above all beasts? The axiomatic quality of answer given to that most fundamental of all questions of law and statecraft, is the only legitimate basis for what is called natural law, the law to which all other law must be subordinated.

That is the fundamental moral issue which separates all Christians, for example, from Malthusians such as Vice President Al Gore and former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger. Without making that distinction, law itself is degraded intrinsically to that condition of Hobbesian swinishness which Kissinger praised so effusively in his celebrated London Chatham House address on what the well-informed patriots of Central and South America will recall as having been the notable occasion of May 10, 1982.

That is the fundamental moral issue expressed by the present-day U.S. violations of the natural human rights of the nations and persons of Central and South America. This conception is essential to defining functionally durable and equitable partnership among the American republics. That notion of law is the only truly efficient definition of a workable definition of common strategic interest.

On this and related premises, we must adopt a clear image of the uniqueness of the legacy of anti-Malthusian, or natural law, which we have inherited as a gift from the Fifteenth-Century Renaissance birth of modern European civilization. This image must be the axiomatic premise of a durable form of urgently needed new alliance among the republics of the Americas.

2.1 A Needed Doctrine of Natural Law

Our task at this perilous moment, is not to negotiate a new treaty-agreement among states of the Americas, but the more modest, but nonetheless indispensable task, of defining among ourselves the nature of those principles of law which we intend should be the goal and clearly understood intent of those kinds of agreements we hope to bring into being.

By intent of law, I mean close attention to the Apostle Paul’s I Corinthians 13, for example, where the Christian appreciation of Plato’s doctrine of agapē is stated. This is to be read against the background of the debate over the issues of truthfulness and justice among the figures Socrates, Glaucon, and Thrasymachus, in what is recognized more widely today by the title of Plato’s Republic. This notion of law, as set forth by Paul, goes much further, much deeper than the rather vulgarized definitions of caritas, or “charity,” too commonly encountered today. In first approximation, agapē requires the notion that no law can be enforced which violates the absolute obligation of the state to promote the general welfare (common good) of all of the people and their posterity. No law which might compel the state to violate, or overlook that consideration, is enforceable under natural law; any contrary law must be nullified for that occasion, by authority of the natural law. This is the great principle of Christian principle from which the Fifteenth-Century founding of the then-revolutionary new kind of institution, the modern sovereign nation-state, was premised.

First of all, we statesmen and others of the Americas, must clarify our agreement on the implications of this principle of natural law. For that purpose, I merely summarize here the exposition which I have supplied in extant published locations.

The notion that man and woman are each made equally in the image of the Creator of the universe, is often taught as received doctrine. It is also a scientific fact. The scientific proof is centered in the repeated demonstration, that the perfectly sovereign cognitive powers of the human individual, are the only means by which an experimentally validatable universal physical principle can be discovered, or the act of its discovery replicated in the mind of a student. It is through this means, and only this means, that the human species can accomplish what no other species can replicate, the willful increase of the potential relative population-density of the human species as a whole.

When mankind acts in that way, we demonstrate that the universe is so pre-designed, that it is predisposed to obey man’s will when man issues a validated discovery of universal physical principle as a demand upon that universe. Thus we know, with scientific certainty, that man is made in the image of the Creator of the universe, and is supplied, thus, the imperative to act accordingly, to change the universe in ways which the principle of agapē requires.

On account of such evidence, we are obliged, even by scientific evidence as such, to set all individual persons absolutely apart from and above all other living species. This also obliges us to treat our fellow human-beings in a certain way, in a manner cohering with the notion of agapē as a universal, highest principle of natural law. This informs us that there exists but one human race, that which shares this absolute, inborn distinction of the newborn human individual from all other living species. This informs us that we are required to provide for such persons by forms of education, and other care, suitable to this nature. We are also required to express that creative power which defines our species as the leading quality of our actions upon the universe, and actions bearing upon the human condition, most emphatically.

This pits the natural law not only against the Adolf Hitlers of the world, but also the followers of the dogma of Thomas Malthus, Bertrand Russell, the late Margaret Mead, Norbert Wiener, John von Neumann, and Vice President Al Gore.

The principle is elementary, but not simple. It is elementary in the same general sense that all valid discoveries of universal physical principle are both elementary and universal. It is a principle which penetrates everything, everywhere, yet it is never simple.

Thus, on account of that principle of natural law, the state is obliged to act, and states are rightly obliged to act with respect to one another.

We of the Americas, share a vast and richly endowed territory, with vast areas awaiting development according to the principle of law known as agapē. Together with such regions as the desert areas of the continent of Australia, and the vast sparsely populated regions of central and north Asia, we of this hemisphere share one of the great treasure-houses of all humanity. Thus, that development of that treasure which some among us might lack the means to develop adequately, must be made available in a timely way to the nation within whose sovereignty it lies. In this category of cooperation among sovereigns, lie certain great infrastructure-development projects, which can not be installed except through cooperation of various kinds.

The planet as a whole faces certain needs which could not be satisfied by each acting as one nation alone. The combat against epidemic and pandemic deadly infections, is such a case. Also, the development of exploration of nearby space, to discover the principles by means of which we might control the cycles of glaciation, meteoric destruction, and so on, of life on this planet, are missions of common interest to all humanity, beyond any one nation, which nations must cooperate in ensuring are accomplished. Similarly, the right to share access to all scientific and related knowledge, is, as Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa emphasized, a natural-law right and obligation of each nation.

2.2 The Sovereign Nation-State

Anyone who has been surprised, by stepping with a bare foot on a jellyfish on the beach, might be reminded of the emotion evoked by meeting with what one had assumed to be a sane and urbane member of modern civilization, who suddenly turns our stomach with the proposal that the elimination of the sovereign nation-state is a desirable goal for policy-shaping today. The sand on that beach had seemed so pleasant to the touch, until that thing expressed its presence!

We have come to a time, throughout the world, at which virtually every central banking system of the world, including the U.S. Federal Reserve System, is not merely bankrupt, but hopelessly so. There is no possible way, in which the world’s currently outstanding nominal debt, could possibly ever be paid. Hundreds of trillions of U.S. dollar-equivalents, must be abruptly written off, or placed in frozen, non-interest-bearing accounts, pending future disposition in bankruptcy-proceedings. The problem is, that if we do not write off, or freeze most of the outstanding financial-capital claims extant in the world today, the world as a whole will collapse into a protracted new dark age, in which it were likely that economic breakdown and related effects would bring the world’s total population down to levels approximately those of more than 600 years ago.

The only action which could prevent the present global financial collapse from producing that outcome, is certain qualities of action which can be taken only by perfectly sovereign individual nation-states. These actions include, the power of the sovereign government to put bankrupt institutions through government-directed bankruptcy reorganization, and to generate large masses of newly created credit, deployed through national banking methods of a Hamiltonian type, to suddenly increase levels of useful employment, rather than allow a collapse of employment and of essential services.

The principal emergency action which we must therefore hope that the sovereign governments of the hemisphere will adopt, at the moment the now inevitable, early collapse, the biggest in history, erupts, is just that. This kind of emergency action must occur not only within nations, but in rapidly expanding hard-commodity trade among nations, with special emphasis upon lines of trade within the hemisphere.

The first line of defense on this account, will include emergency forms of protectionist measures to reverse recent downward trends in food production, and vast expansion of investment in the basic economic infrastructure, such as transportation, power, water management, sanitation, education, and health-care, on which a general economic growth, in real terms, depends.

During the coming year, and during the coming five to ten years beyond that, without emergency, forced-draft economic reconstruction and expansion along such lines, many nations would not survive, even biologically. Without international cooperation among sovereign governments, along such lines, the otherwise manageable economic crisis immediately before us will not be overcome.

The practical measures implicit in those immediately preceding observations, constitute the pivots on which needed immediate changes in the relations among the states of the Americas must be premised, as matters of priorities.

Such are among the leading measures which ought to be the current basis for dialogue among relevant leading circles within and among nations of the hemisphere. The agenda for dialogue so implied, should be the concrete topic around which we hasten to define the practical side of the approach to making the Monroe Doctrine’s definition of a community of principle clear, concrete, and practical.

To make feasible the accomplishment of the other things we must settle in common among the sovereign nations of this hemisphere, is the development of the kinds of philosophical cooperation among statesmen and others, through which we may generate the needed degree of comprehension of deeper principles which is essential, in turn, for establishing a common intent for pursuit of common purposes, and the ecumenical resolution of what might appear to be difficult philosophical differences.