Executive Intelligence Review, Volume 46, Number 24, June 21, 2019

- Cover

- Masthead

- EDITORIAL Major Feature-Length Video Coming: Join the Campaign to Exonerate LaRouche

- PDF edition Table of Contents — Volume 46, Number 24, June 21, 2019

- I. From the Old Paradigm to the New

- INTERVIEW The Artemis Generation

- PUT THE REAL RUSSIAGATE CRIMINALS ON TRIAL! Trump and the Not-So-Special Relationship With the British by Harley Schlanger

- Italy Considers Moves Toward Monetary Sovereignty by Claudio Celani

- ZEPP-LAROUCHE WEBCAST As Global War Danger Grows, the Ideas of Lyndon LaRouche Are Needed More Than Ever

- II. Development, or Green Genocide?

- INTERVIEW WITH KRIS STEWART What Is Causing Massive Wildfires In the U.S. West: The Environment—Or Environmentalism?

- GERMAN ECO-DICTATORSHIP? Decarbonization of Germany’s Transportation Sector Will Be Astronomically Costly by Andrea Andromidas

- NORTH AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK Transform U.S.-Mexico-Central America Relations with Infrastructure Projects by Brian Lantz

- III. LaRouche’s View of Man the Fire-Bringer

- FROM LAROUCHE’S WEBCAST OF APRIL 11, 2009 ‘Seven Sequential Points’ on Science, Economy, and the Future of Humanity

- LAROUCHE PAC CLASS Music and Creativity: The Lawfulness and Beautiful Ordering of the Universe by Liliana Gorini and John Sigerson

- EDITORIAL FROM STRANGELOVE TO DEARLOVE Is the United States Conducting British War Without the Knowledge of the President?

British Lies Unleash War Hysteria, Target President Trump

Editor-in-Chief and Founder:

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

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

Co-Editors: Robert Ingraham, Tony Papert

Technology: Marsha Freeman

Transcriptions: Katherine Notley

Ebooks: Richard Burden

Graphics: Alan Yue

Photos: Stuart Lewis

Circulation Manager: Stanley Ezrol

INTELLIGENCE DIRECTORS

Economics: Marcia Merry Baker, Paul Gallagher

History: Anton Chaitkin

Ibero-America: Dennis Small

United States: Debra Freeman

INTERNATIONAL BUREAUS

Berlin: Rainer Apel

Copenhagen: Tom Gillesberg

Lima: Sara Madueño

Melbourne: Robert Barwick

Mexico City: Gerardo Castilleja Chávez

New Delhi: Ramtanu Maitra

Paris: Christine Bierre

Stockholm: Ulf Sandmark

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

Washington, D.C.: William Jones

Wiesbaden: Göran Haglund

ON THE WEB

e-mail: eirns@larouchepub.com

www.larouchepub.com

www.executiveintelligencereview.com

www.larouchepub.com/eiw

Webmaster: John Sigerson

Assistant Webmaster: George Hollis

Editor, Arabic-language edition: Hussein Askary

EIR (ISSN 0273-6314) is published weekly

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

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

(571) 293-0935

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

Tel: 49-611-73650

Homepage: http://www.eir.de

e-mail: info@eir.de

Director: Georg Neudecker

Montreal, Canada: 514-461-1557

eir@eircanada.ca

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

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

Col. Agricultura C.P. 11360

Delegación M. Hidalgo, México D.F.

Tel. (5525) 5318-2301

eirmexico@gmail.com

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

Canada Post Publication Sales Agreement #40683579

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

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

EDITORIAL

Major Feature-Length Video Coming:

Join the Campaign to Exonerate LaRouche

June 13—On June 21, the LaRouche Political Action Committee will release a new 80-minute feature documentary, “The LaRouche Case: Robert Mueller’s First Hit Job.” The video will show that the fraudulent imprisonment of Lyndon LaRouche in 1988 was one of the largest and most egregious government operations against a political figure in U.S. history. The United States and the world have long suffered from being denied LaRouche’s ideas, and it’s time for LaRouche’s exoneration.

The video primarily utilizes footage from the 1995 independent hearings on Department of Justice corruption, featuring Lyndon and Helga LaRouche, former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, attorney Odin Anderson, famed civil rights attorney J.L. Chestnut, former Congressman James Mann, and others.

Viewers of this video will vividly understand the historic depth of injustice of the LaRouche persecution and imprisonment. They will be unable to avoid the implication of the video’s title—that precisely the same apparatus which framed LaRouche back in the 1980s, went on to frame up President Donald Trump, starting in 2016 and continuing to date.

Variously stated or implicit throughout, is that the false prosecution and jailing of LaRouche, guaranteed the catastrophes of the end of the failed 20th century and of the beginning of the 21st. The collapse of communism in Europe, which would have opened a brilliant chapter of human history had LaRouche’s “Productive Triangle” plan been implemented, led instead to a series of wars based on lies, from Iraq I to Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq II, Syria, and Libya. Rather than the combined high-technology economic development of East and West, the former Comecon countries were looted, followed by the collapse of the world financial system, exactly as LaRouche had forecast, in 2007-09.

All this was an unnecessary disaster. Had LaRouche been free to fight for his ideas, and had he won adequate support, as he had won the support of Ronald Reagan for his Strategic Defense Initiative plan by 1983, then subsequent history would have been completely different.

Hand-in-hand with the fight for Lyndon LaRouche’s exoneration, we are forging ahead today with the fight for the realization of his ideas, in a world which has been greatly shaped for the better by LaRouche’s ideas, despite his false prosecution, his imprisonment, and the false label of “felon,” which was stuck onto him.

China’s revolutionary Belt and Road, or New Silk Road, joined by 160 nations and international organizations, was the immediate outgrowth of LaRouche’s “Productive Triangle” program for which his wife Helga held seminars throughout the world while he was in prison. The Putin Presidency, which rescued Russia from disaster and is an essential pillar of the coming world order, was shaped by LaRouche’s researches (witness his 1999 video, “Storm over Asia”) and his trips into Russia. Trump confidants insist that LaRouche played a key role in creating the Trump presidency, as he has since in defending it from a British-inspired coup attempt using the same Robert Mueller who framed LaRouche.

Now the Donald Trump Administration has adopted LaRouche’s program (with scientist Krafft Ehricke) for industrialization of the Moon, leading to the later colonization of Mars!

Let us win LaRouche’s exoneration, and win the world for his vision of a four-power (U.S., China, Russia and India), New Bretton Woods, world credit system.

EIR Contents

www.larouchepub.com — Volume 46, Number 24, June 21, 2019

Cover This Week

DoD/Michael Gross

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo says it was Iran that attacked the two tankers in the Gulf of Oman on June 13.

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

BRITISH LIES UNLEASH WAR HYSTERIA, TARGET PRESIDENT TRUMP

2 EDITORIAL

Major Feature-Length Video Coming:

Join the Campaign to Exonerate LaRouche

I. FROM THE OLD PARADIGM TO THE NEW

4 INTERVIEW WITH MICHAEL STEGER

The Artemis Generation

11 PUT THE REAL RUSSIAGATE CRIMINALS ON TRIAL!

Trump and the Not-So-Special Relationship with the British

by Harley Schlanger

15 Italy Considers Moves Toward Monetary Sovereignty

by Claudio Celani

17 ZEPP-LAROUCHE WEBCAST

As Global War Danger Grows, the Ideas of Lyndon LaRouche Are Needed More Than Ever

II. DEVELOPMENT, OR GREEN GENOCIDE?

25 INTERVIEW: KRIS STEWART

What is Causing Massive Western Wildfires:

The Environment--or Environmentalism?

31 GERMAN ECO-DICTATORSHIP?

Decarbonization of Germany’s Transportation Sector Will Be Astronomically Costly

by Andrea Andromidas

32 NORTH AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK

Transform U.S.-Mexico-Central America Relations with Infrastructure Projects

by Brian Lantz

III. LAROUCHE’S VIEW OF MAN THE FIRE-BRINGER

34 ‘Seven Sequential Points’ on Science, Economy, and the Future of Humanity

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

April 11, 2009

47 LAROUCHE PAC CLASS

Music and Creativity: The Lawfulness and Beautiful Ordering of the Universe

by Liliana Gorini and John Sigerson

61 EDITORIAL: FROM STRANGELOVE TO DEARLOVE

Is the United States Conducting British War Without the Knowledge of the President?

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. From the Old Paradigm to the New

INTERVIEW

The Artemis Generation

On May 13, 2019, NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine announced the name of NASA’s program to return astronauts to the Moon in 2024—“Artemis.” In Greek mythology, Artemis was the twin of Apollo and the goddess of the Moon. She governed hunting, wild animals, and the wilderness. The Frontiers!

EIR: This is Robert Ingraham with EIR, and I am speaking this evening, June 13, with Michael Steger, the West Coast spokesman for LaRouche PAC, on the subject of the Artemis Generation.

Mike, on June 5th, LaRouche PAC published a short document entitled, “The Project Artemis Generation: To the Moon and Beyond,” a statement which I believe you authored. What was your thinking that led you to write it?

Michael Steger

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

Michael Steger: I see myself as part of the Artemis Generation. It’s probably why this strikes such a chord. There are two different factors to this—two different factors to the Artemis Generation. I’m 41 now, and for people my age there’s an experience which has been unique in the sense of the kind of fraud and the level of deceit and criminal nature of our government and of our society over these last 20-some years. It started really—I think the turning point was the 9/11 attack. As we know, EIR has covered this, LaRouche PAC has covered this, that the attacks on 9/11 were a British conspiracy run with the Bush administration and Saudi factors.

It was an attempted coup, and Lyndon LaRouche really said this. I have had the privilege to work with Lyndon LaRouche for about 17 years, and I came around this organization and his ideas in the wake of that attack. My response was to join this movement; many other people my age, who had come into adulthood just before or just after these 9/11 attacks, responded based on the good faith of the government to say that this was an attack by an enemy operation, and many men and women went off to war to fight this. And many people supported that; many people believed this was what was necessary for the country.

FEMA/Andrea Booher

Turning point for a generation: The 9/11 attacks led America into useless wars in the Middle East.

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

September 11, 2001: British Terror

There were many brothers and sisters or aunts and uncles and parents of these children who went off to this war. They did this with the sense that their life meant something; they did it with the sense that their society, their nation, their civilization meant something, much like what we saw recently with the D-Day anniversary. There are these echoes of people who had sacrificed themselves really heroically, like on D-Day, for something much greater than themselves. There was that response. I think it’s an intrinsic characteristic of human identity. When you have this great challenge, you have what is presented to you as a great and immediate crisis; this quality of identity from the better people—the more sensitive, the more honest people of society respond. The natural leaders of society respond in that way.

But these wars were based on lies, wars based on the criminal intent of our own government under Bush and Obama. Many people ended up then in these horrible conflicts and wars, and as we now know, many of these people have come back either maimed or psychologically scarred; the suicide rates of veterans are way up. Others didn’t come back. It’s affected a generation. I’ve interacted with a number of these veterans. I think many people have.

public domain

U.S. landing boats pouring vast amounts of military cargo ashore at Omaha Beach on D-Day, June 6, 1944, to support the liberation of Europe from fascism.

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

There is also another quality of person within this generation, and this is what NASA Administrator Bridenstine has referenced. This is a generation that was born after the Apollo landings. Really the greatest accomplishment of our country, maybe of our civilization, was to put a man on the Moon, especially in the time-frame that we did it. It’s been 50 years, this July, since the first landing on the Moon. It’s hard to imagine that they put a man on the Moon within 25 years of D-Day, with technology that seems almost like a horse and buggy compared to the computer technologies and space technologies that we have available today. Yet, they were able to accomplish that mission. It’s been 50 years since we’ve done that. But this is a generation born after that was done.

There’s all this talk of advances in our society, but if you are an honest person, and you look at the situation, you look at the college education—it’s crap. Many people who went to college think that college was a waste of time; and that’s an accurate view in most cases. You might learn a few things, but in general, you learn more on the job; you learn more in the professional commitment you made in the process of work, than you ever did with this college educational system.

So, this generation knows that our society had accomplished something remarkable. And the question comes up: Is there a way to do something remarkable today? Is there a way of solving the problems in the world today? I think more and more people are confronting that. There’s also this echo, this sense that there is something missing, something missing that we need to devote ourselves to—something as a mission orientation. We need something greater than ourselves. We’ve had all these self-help books, all this kind of “me generation”—the self-absorption, the kind of Baby Boomer epitome of “my experience, my life, my pleasure.” For the more honest people who see the corruption in our society, we want something more; we don’t want to live based on our experiences or our personal pleasure or our social status. We want to dedicate and devote ourselves to something.

The Moon-Mars Mission

This mission presented by President Trump and his NASA Administrator Bridenstine created a Moon-Mars directorate. It’s an entirely new directorate in NASA. There’s a commitment to it; it’s a commitment not just to put flags and footprints, as the President’s space memo started off with. It’s not just footprints and flags. We’re going to the Moon in a sustainable way; it changes the environmentalist view of “sustainable.” It means we’re going to industrialize the Moon; we’re going to develop a long-term capacity on the Moon. And ultimately, if we’re going to do anything on Mars, which is the discussion, it’s going to take really a generation of industrial and economic activity to maintain people on the Moon, to develop the capabilities, to develop the robotics, to develop the launch capacity, the energy supply.

NASA

NASA

President Trump has directed NASA to put humans on the Moon again, by 2024. This mission will fundamentally change our society.

NASA

A truly sustainable human presence on the Moon will require a generation of industrial and other economic activity.

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

We will have to run a massive energy supply, even to put robotics on Mars on a large scale; you need a massive energy supply. That means we have to learn how to deploy that and get it operational. There are a lot of things we have to learn on the Moon, which as Bridenstine and others have said, the Moon is a three-day trip. Mars is—maybe one day we can get it down to three weeks—but it’s three to nine months now.

NASA/Aubrey Gemignani

NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine keynoting the Humans to Mars Summit at the National Academy of Sciences in Washington on May 14, 2019.

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

Bridenstine, as he himself said, was born after Apollo landed, but he knows it happened. And there is this question: Why would any society ever stop? Why did we stop? All of the conspiracy theories out there only exist because it’s so irrational that any society would have stopped, that we must have actually never gone. In reality, our society had become that irrational, and there’s a sense that we now are going back. And we’re going to it in a completely different way with a scientific orientation; not just simply as a political challenge of “can we do it?” or an engineering challenge of “can it be done?”—but this time with a sense that it’s going to fundamentally change our society.

Creating Generation Artemis

As I said, there are two aspects to this question of the Artemis Generation. First is the question of leadership. This is a generation that has seen the criminal fraud of our government over the last 20 years, but many have made major sacrifices to overcome that, whether they fought in the wars, or they fought with the LaRouche movement to challenge these policies, to challenge this government system. There is a leadership quality there, one which is now going to implement and fight for this kind of policy and vision.

The other aspect is, how do you now develop a next generation to really surpass the current social characteristics that we see, the cultural neuroses that we see implemented by the Silicon Valley orientation, Wall Street, the music culture? This begins with education. Many people criticize the current education programs, the structure, the content. But you have to ask yourself a real question. How do you create a new generation of teachers who can then teach a whole new generation of young people?

So, in this case, we’re now talking two generations. To create a generation of teachers in the next generation, and then for those teachers to then build up an entirely new generation of development. So Bridenstine called this the Artemis Generation; this mission to the Moon and Mars shaping this process. I would invert it, and say Generation Artemis is this process of three generations of development. You ask yourself, how do we create a new cadre of high-quality teachers? You have to start with a very small, select grouping of people that are of the greatest moral commitment. They have a sense of, as Helga Zepp-LaRouche has emphasized, the aesthetic quality, a sense of beauty, a sense of beauty of mankind in the universe. The beauty and quality of the human to grasp the universe.

Think of these astronauts, the people participating in this, the perspective that they gain. We’ve had a glimpse of this with the International Space Station, but what we’re discussing now is actually having a sustained, manned base on the Moon. And from that permanent lunar perspective, having the ability to look back on Earth’s civilization, on the unique characteristic of the Earth in our universe and the human species in our universe; and to then begin to educate a whole generation of school children around questions of science, questions of industry, questions of energy supply, questions of culture, questions of language. What language will we speak on the Moon? Because it won’t just be the United States. India has a lunar plan; China has a lunar program; Russia has a lunar program; Europe has a lunar program. Japan is working on a lunar program.

So, there are going to be these questions of what kind of culture is created on the Moon? Today, with this platform of the internet, there is a capacity to bring in, to educate, from a small handful of these astronauts and the people involved in the space program, to start educating to reach every school, every classroom from K-12 into developing a new generation.

Science Driver for Economic Progress

So, we have to conceptualize the next 10-20 years of lunar development, to a broad industrial scale of economic activity, and we can discuss what that might entail. These are some of the aspects, maybe as a rough sketch, of what I see with this question of Generation Artemis. It is inspired by this Moon-Mars mission and Administrator Bridenstine’s own perspective of at least locating the specific event of Artemis Generation: getting us back to the Moon in a sustained way, and looking to Mars. But that is going to vector an entirely broad change in the way we can organize and develop our society, away from this kind of criminal corruption that we’ve seen these last 20 years.

EIR: A lot of people get very pessimistic about the youth culture. They see the domination of Hollywood, some of the worst aspects of the internet and social media, and now the move for legalized drugs across the United States. Yet, in all of the speeches that he has given over the recent months, NASA Administrator Bridenstine has, as you said, stressed again and again, “We are the Artemis Generation.” He’s really identifying this as potentially a new identity, a new culture for young people who are coming into adulthood, for young people who are in high school or middle school now, or college. He speaks repeatedly about his 11-year-old daughter and what he wants to see as the opportunities for her.

Steger: Yes, it was striking—Bridenstine gave a presentation at Florida Tech, which is where this idea initially came up. He gave a whole presentation on what the lunar program looks like between now and 2024, and to 2028. The idea is, by 2024 to have the first woman and next man on the Moon; and then by 2028 to have a sustained operation where we even have the ability for reusable landers. You have kind of an infrastructure set-up where the process becomes a sustainable development of a permanent manned base. So, he goes through this; it’s about an hour-long presentation. Then he takes a few questions afterwards.

One of the questions comes from a professor at the University of Central Florida. The first thing he says is, “This is probably the most inspiring speech I have ever heard.” Then he says, “What role do you see for the universities, and how do you see our ability to inspire young people to participate in this?” Bridenstine’s answer to that question was revealing: He emphasized that the universities would have a unique specific role in early research, as well as analyzing a lot of the discoveries on the Moon in terms of soil content, and exploring different ideas of what are actually the scientific questions about the universe that are accessible on the Moon that aren’t accessible elsewhere.

Permission by Praxis Films

Edward Snowden

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

If you take what I initially developed about the Iraq War and 9/11—take someone like Edward Snowden. Here was a student who was highly engaged in computers. Take the issue of Silicon Valley and the computer orientation of students. Many of them are not necessarily excited about logical language systems and programming. Most of them are excited about science; they like science, and then they’re directed toward computers. Silicon Valley itself developed out of the space program, and 90 percent of the young people, or at least a large number, got involved in this because of questions like the space program, and science and technology. They didn’t want to work at Facebook or Google. It’s just that that’s where the money is, that’s where the social direction and social vectors are.

Edward Snowden was similar. He was brought in to go to work and volunteer for the Iraq War. He got sucked into the NSA operation, and then he realizes our whole government has become a criminal apparatus. He had the courage to say that this is absolutely wrong, and he risked his entire life. It was really a very provocative experience; he was really an indication of a younger generation that was not going to tolerate this corruption any longer.

A Paradigm Shift Away from Pessimism

I think this is intrinsic in young people. So what Bridenstine has done, is not just to say this is an “important mission.” He sees it—as you reference—that what he’s doing today is fundamentally going to alter the course of his 11-year-old daughter’s life. Whatever she’ll do, whatever she participates in, if he can accomplish the mission he has in front of him over the next ten years, by the time she’s an educated and developed independent adult at 21-22 years old, she will have opportunities and abilities to participate in a society that are unlike anything that she would have available right now, or that people over the last 20 years have really thought about.

There is that excitement; there is an excitement that our lives mean something. But this is not something unusual, except in the context of the last 50 years. Up until 50 years ago, this was an intrinsic characteristic of American society. You see it going all the way back to the Massachusetts Bay Colony. You see it in the historical figures that people often reference. The American generations, the families, handed their children always a better and greater potential within their lifetime. We’ve certainly seen that since Lincoln, and then Roosevelt. It’s always taken great leadership; it’s always taken a response from the population to great leadership—to concede to that, to assent to that leadership. But it’s been that unique, American dynamic to create that, and to fight for that sense of scientific and technological progress to create a better future for the next generation.

NASA/Aubrey Gemignani

NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine with Rice University students, after a “Future of Space” STEM event at NASA Headquarters in Washington on April 29, 2019.

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

So, what Bridenstine really did was to regain what President Trump has referenced, and what EIR and the LaRouche organization have been fighting for, for 50 years. It’s the revival of what Hamilton had really shaped the U.S. Constitutional idea around.

There has now been additional funding requested, $1.6 billion. There’s some hemming and hawing politically in Congress, but it’s very likely that this will be provided. This will go directly to accomplishing the manned mission within the next five years. So, it’s real; it’s not just talk. There’s a commitment. But there’s also a conceptual idea of this, which really grabs people. Bridenstine himself was a naval fighter pilot, but there is a different sense of what the nature of this mission is: It’s not a war against Russia and China; it’s not a war against terrorism: it’s a war against our own stupidity.

We’re not going to win it if we don’t decide to go back to a sense of progress through science and technology. I think that’s what is captured, and I think that’s the general aspect of this whole dynamic that we’re now starting to see.

A Mission Orientation

I can say that in terms of young people responding, as people have pointed to before: 75 percent of the internet is pornography; there’s a lot of problems with it. But you also find platforms like YouTube, which of course is probably the more interesting platform, because it’s just a lot of video material that people can post and share and make publicly available. It’s not identity oriented, like Facebook or Twitter; you’re not building up a persona. You’re just offering material. What we’re finding is that there’s a self-education culture developing. There are channels which are oriented toward helping bring alive some of the more complicated mathematics to a more visual and animated domain, and there are millions of subscribers to channels devoted to these questions. Millions of subscribers devoted to learning about science in everyday matters.

Last night, I watched a video on grain containers; there was a guy who did a whole ten-minute video on grain containers and how they’re built, how they function, and how they’re critical for maintaining the food supply of the country. But there are millions of subscribers to this guy’s channel, who does videos on things that are about science, engineering, and industry in the real world. There are millions of subscribers to entire channels dedicated to space exploration. These are the people out there who are hungry and looking for these things. who are bored at school, who are bored by television, who are bored by the radio stations. The internet has provided a unique opportunity to find areas where their minds can be provoked. There is an ability to really educate this generation.

But it is missing something! It’s missing that mission orientation, and people who are doing something that’s never been done before. Because education is not about learning about how something works. That’s useful, but to really educate a generation to really think creatively, you have to provoke them into thinking about something that is being done for the first time. And the people engaged in it, are having to think about doing something that’s never been done before.

So, this takes us to the Moon-Mars mission. The astronauts are not just simply on the Moon; they’re not just growing plants; they’re not just building systems on the lunar surface, or whatever other experiments they might be doing. It’s going to have to be thought about in an entirely different way. And it’s that quality of discovery that’s coming from this quality of leadership, and this kind of cadre of teachers that will then start to bring an entirely different level of content and a transformed ability to educate.

We will not be dependent on the major media to cover this. Remember, during Apollo, by the third time we landed on the Moon, the network television channels didn’t even want to cover it. But today we’ll have live feeds; you’ll have people able to engage with these astronauts in an ongoing discussion process, including with the entire program. This stuff will be streaming all over the place.

Looking to the Stars

Bridenstine himself is giving a speech almost every other day; he’s going around to all the various NASA facilities and giving town hall meetings and engaging the workforce so that they themselves are brought in. He did one recently in Ohio. And you can see some of the faces; there’s a cynical nature to some of the expressions. “Yeah, yeah. I’ve heard this before.” There was skepticism that “We’ve heard this before with Constellation.” So, you have to sort of pull people out of the mud of this.

But think about the capability to engage not only the people at NASA, not just in school systems with perhaps a class every week broadcast from the Moon—but engaging the entire population with whatever class series these astronauts want to give! Whatever class series other people engaged in making breakthroughs on propulsion systems want to give. How do we get to Mars? You can’t use normal rocket fuel; it just takes too long. You need a different propulsion system: people making breakthroughs in these areas, and breakthroughs that are created because more people are engaged in a scientific industrial process. They will be able to share their ideas and to communicate with an entire society that’s willing and wanting to participate; where people can self-select themselves and develop an understanding, develop a way of thinking. Of course, the critical part is to get the hands-on development.

The potential is unbounded. The real question is how we bring the mind—the human mind—back to address the cultural process of our society. And the Artemis Generation and Project Artemis and this Moon-Mars mission—altogether—are really bringing the human mind back to a cultural sense of significance. It’s the priority: engaging in mission. engaging in development. Engaging in exploration for the benefit of mankind is the very reason—it’s the measured and the measure—it’s the very reason why we are human.

EIR: Thank you.

PUT THE REAL RUSSIAGATE CRIMINALS ON TRIAL!

Trump and the Not-So-Special Relationship With the British

by Harley Schlanger

White House/Andrea Hanks

President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump meet with Queen Elizabeth II in Portsmouth, England on June 5, 2019.

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

June 10—With President Donald Trump’s urgent insistence that investigators get to the bottom of who and what is behind the coup attempt against him, there has been an intensified focus on the central role of the British monarchy, which acted through its intelligence channels in the UK and in the United States, in launching Russiagate. The evidence of the British role is finally emerging into public view, with potentially devastating blow-back to come against the perpetrators.

The ongoing coup attempt against President Trump must be defeated and exposed not just to defend our current President, but to break the apparatus, centered in Britain, which has promulgated wars on our planet for the last two centuries, by getting nation states to fight each other for the benefit of that predatory British-centered oligarchical power. This is the crucial insight that even Trump’s most staunch supporters most frequently miss, either because of a stubborn narrowness of vision, or for lack of real strategic oversight.

The anti-Trump fanatics, including pro-impeachment Democrats, neo-con Republicans and mainstream media, continue to pound the “Russia hacking” line—that is, that Russia interfered in the 2016 Presidential election, to elect Trump, citing Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation and Mueller’s fraudulent report as “proof.”

EIR readers know that investigators in the LaRouche movement have presented compelling evidence, from Day One, of the British origin of Russiagate, and our publications and the interventions by our activists have played a crucial role in bringing that British origin forward. A renewed focus on how the dodgy dossier of “former” British spy Christopher Steele provided the excuse for spying on the Trump campaign, is provoking panic among British imperial circles. And Attorney General William Barr’s appointment of a hard-edged prosecutor—the U.S. Attorney for Connecticut, John Durham—to look into the origins of the fabricated narrative of Russiagate, has deepened their concern.

So it is not surprising that a major public relations effort was undertaken, starting with the Queen herself, to convince President Trump that the so-called “Special Relationship” between the United States and the UK is as strong and as important, as ever. That is what was behind the pageantry, the so-called “pomp and circumstance,” which characterized last week’s visit of the U.S. President to London. It occurred at a moment of increasing instability in the UK, as the still-unresolved matter of Brexit adds to the sense that the British Empire is devolving into a full-blown existential crisis.

Do not be fooled by comments from Trump himself, extolling the “unique bond” between the United States and Great Britain. At the same time that he expressed admiration for the Queen, reveled in the red carpet treatment, and responded mildly to a lengthy and foolish lecture from Prince Charles on “global warming,” Trump has remained focused on the British role in the coup attempt. This is adding to the extreme nervousness in London.

‘Former’ Spy Can’t Hide Any Longer

Trump’s focus became evident in a May 8 tweet, in which he wrote about the “former” British MI6 agent who compiled the infamous “pee-pee” dossier against him. “This British spy,” he tweeted, “Christopher Steele tried so hard to get this (the Fake Dossier) out before the election. Why?”

The tweet referred to a recently declassified memo from Kathleen Kavalec, Deputy Coordinator in the U.S. State Department for Assistance to Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia, which discredited Steele and his dossier, identifying it as “unverified,” asserting that Steele seemed desperate to get his dossier out in time to interfere with the U.S. election.

Kavalec’s memo was delivered to top FBI officials ten days before Steele’s fraudulent compilation was used by the FBI as the primary source in obtaining a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court surveillance warrant against the Trump campaign. This warrant gave the FBI the basis to engage in what Attorney General Barr characterized as “spying” on Trump’s campaign. The release of the still partially redacted Kavalec memo not only demonstrates criminal action by FBI Director James Comey, but reaffirms Steele’s place at the center of the criminal conspiracy to overturn Trump’s election victory.

Trump again explicitly called out the British on May 24, in explaining his order to declassify all documents related to Russiagate, saying of his mandate to Barr, “I hope he looks at the UK and I hope he looks at Australia and I hope he looks at Ukraine.” It is necessary, he added, to find out what happened and when, “because this was an attempted takedown of the President of the United States, and we have to find out why.”

The Steele story popped up, during Trump’s visit to the UK, in a June 5 article in the London Times, “Christopher Steele: MI6 Agent to Face Questions on Trump Russia Dossier.” The news in the story was that Steele has finally agreed to testify before U.S. authorities, within certain conditions, on his relationship with the FBI.

But even more important, the article reveals that the British government is disavowing any relationship with Steele, quoting a “senior official” who said the government was not involved in his decision to testify, “as this relates to issues arising many years after he left government employment.” Previously, when Steele appeared in a London court, a top barrister employed by the British government accompanied him, to protect him and prevent the “compromising of any state secrets.” It appears that this protection has now been lifted, leading to reports in the New York Times and other media of mounting hysteria on the part of Steele, and among his defenders.

Source of the ‘Russian Hacking’ Narrative

Such sophistry from Her Majesty’s Government is unlikely to divert Attorney General Barr’s team from investigating other leads while questioning Steele, such as the coordination between Britain’s Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), the equivalent of the U.S. National Security Agency, and former CIA Director John Brennan, in launching Russiagate months prior to the release of the Steele dossier; the role of the “Five Eyes” (the UK, U.S., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) in spying on behalf of President Barack Obama’s intelligence team, to maintain the fiction that U.S. intelligence was not spying on Americans; and the coordination between the UK’s Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) and the FBI in using shared operatives, such as Josef Mifsud, Stephan Halper and Alexander Downer, to set in motion the lie of “Russian hacking” in the 2016 Presidential election campaign.

C-SPAN

Attorney General William Barr.

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

The New York Times reported on June 12 that Attorney General Barr and investigator Durham will interview two senior CIA officers because—

Mr. Barr has been interested in how the CIA drew its conclusions about Russia’s election sabotage, particularly the judgment that Mr. Putin ordered their operatives to help Mr. Trump by discrediting his opponent, Hillary Clinton. . . . Mr. Barr wants to know more about the CIA sources who helped inform its understanding of the details of the Russian interference campaign. . . . He also wants to better understand the intelligence that flowed from the CIA to the FBI in the summer of 2016.

This channel of the investigation will lead to exposing the still-accepted lie of the Mueller report, that Russia engaged in hacking the Democratic National Committee’s computers, as part of its strategy to aid Trump’s election. The Guardian reported that in June 2016, British GCHQ Director Robert Hannigan brought the first so-called evidence of Russian interference to then CIA Director Brennan, which led to the opening of an official investigation, in July 2016. The January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment accepted, with no evidence presented, the story of Russian interference, which then became a central theme of the anti-Trump narrative. It was later given the status of unquestioned truth in the Mueller report, despite the absence of any credible forensic evidence to prove there was Russian hacking that obtained the emails later released by WikiLeaks.

This fraud has been definitively refuted by former NSA Technical Director and whistleblower William Binney, whose actual forensic investigation found that there was not only no hacking, but that the emails were downloaded to a thumb-drive or similar device, as an “inside job,” which was then delivered to WikiLeaks.

More Evasions and Lies from Mueller

As impeachment-obsessed Democrats continue to demand that Mueller testify before a Congressional committee, more gaping holes are opening up in his fictional report.

Gage Skidmore

Former CIA Director John Brennan.

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

On the British angle, he has yet to answer why he never interrogated Steele; why he never looked into the initiating role of GCHQ and Hannigan; why he ignored voluminous evidence of malicious, criminal intent on the part of his long-time buddy James Comey and leading FBI officials, in their targeting of the Trump campaign and then the Trump Presidency, using the faked Steele report; and why he repeated, without question, the various stories designed to confirm Russia’s role, planted by shared British-U.S. intelligence assets Josef Mifsud, Stephan Halper, and Alexander Downer, who were part of an elaborate sting operation targeting a former foreign-policy advisor to Donald Trump, Carter Page—who was the subject of the initial FISA Court application—and also minor Trump campaign advisor, George Papadopoulos.

FBI

Former FBI Director James Comey.

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

A new lead was reported by John Solomon in The Hill on June 6, which relates to Mueller’s charge that Ukrainian businessman and political consultant Konstantin Kilimnik—who was an associate of former Trump Campaign Manager Paul Manafort—was an agent of President Putin and Russia’s secret services. Solomon reported on June 6 that there are “hundreds of pages of government documents—which special counsel Robert Mueller [has] possessed since 2018,” which describe Kilimnik “as a ‘sensitive’ intelligence source for the U.S. State Department who informed on Ukrainian and Russian matters.”

Solomon points out that the Kilimnik narrative is so important to Mueller’s charges of Russian involvement that it appears in the opening of his report, writing that the FBI assessed that Kilimnik had “ties to Russian intelligence,” with no reference to his connection to, and activity on behalf of the State Department.

Kilimnik’s relationship with the U.S. State Department, through the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, puts him in the circle of those, including Christopher Steele, who were instrumental in pulling off the anti-Russian regime-change coup in Ukraine, which triggered a devolution of relations between Russia and the trans-Atlantic nations. Steele had a close relationship with Jonathan Winer, a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, who channeled his reports on Ukraine to Victoria Nuland, then Assistant U.S. Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, who was a coordinator of the U.S.-British intervention there. Winer became a source for the circulation of Steele’s dirty dossier during the 2016 election campaign.

It is not known if Trump followed through on a request made in a May 22 letter by Republican Congressman Devin Nunes that Trump ask Prime Minister Theresa May whether the British government was aware of, or took part in surveillance efforts against the Trump campaign.

But one indication that he may not be so committed to the special relationship—as it emerged after being first described as such in 1946 by then UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill—was his quoting the prayer of President Franklin Roosevelt (FDR), as U.S., British and Canadian troops stormed the French beaches on D-Day, June 6, 1944. That is an indication that would not be missed by leading British intelligence officials: It is well known that FDR had been sharply at odds with Churchill during World War II; FDR repeatedly told Churchill that the U.S. would not permit the restoration of the British Empire after the war.

Despite his pleasantries with the Queen and her family, Trump’s definition of national sovereignty does not include allowing the present-day British Empire to deploy its forces to sustain the presently imploding trans-Atlantic globalist strategic and financial regime. With the investigation of the perpetrators of Russiagate proceeding under Barr’s direction, the so-called special relationship may be finally meeting its well deserved end.

Italy Considers Moves Toward Monetary Sovereignty

by Claudio Celani

Aureliano Ferri

Antonio Maria Rinaldi (right) with Claudio Celani in Ascoli Piceno, Italy in December 2018.

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

June 17—An Italian move to assert financial sovereignty is driving European Union supranational institutions and some European chancellorships berserk. It concerns a proposed means of payment, called “mini-BOT,” which is formally neither currency nor government debt, but could become a sovereign currency in case of an acute confrontation between Italy and the EU on economic policy.

On May 28, the Italian Chamber of Deputies approved a bipartisan, non-binding motion recommending the government introduce a means of payment called mini-BOT as a way to pay debt in arrears to vendors and taxpayers, amounting to up to 53 billion Euros. Although the name mini-BOT means literally “mini-Treasury bonds” (Buono Ordinario del Tesoro), the proposed mini-BOT is not a government debt note, but a bill that can be used to pay taxes. In other words, it is a swap between government debt to vendors and taxpayers’ debt to the government. Thus, mini-BOTs are not a parallel currency—not yet.

However, the inventors of the mini-BOTs hope that they can be used on a voluntary basis among third parties (who can pay their taxes with it) as well, thus increasing liquidity in the real economy. And, in an extreme case, from being a non-legal tender bill, the mini-BOT could become legal currency in case of an emergency.

Such an emergency is closer than one might think.

The Italian government has made clear that it is sticking to a non-austerity budget for 2020. In the past, such a policy course has cost Greece a surrender to a brutal fiscal therapy enforced by a caretaker committee, called the “Troika” and composed of the EU Commission, the European Central Bank (ECB), and the IMF. Greece had no choice but to surrender, because the ECB suddenly cut emergency liquidity to Greek banks in 2015. As a member of the Eurozone, the Greek central bank could not provide the required liquidity, because the power of currency emission lies exclusively with the ECB.

It is being rumored that if the ECB attempts the same blackmail against Italy, the Italian government might use the mini-BOT to replace ECB liquidity for Italian banks.

How probable is this scenario? It is too early to attempt a forecast, as many pieces in the puzzle must come together yet, and many actors in the play will change. In the first place, a new EU Commission shall be elected by the newly elected European Parliament, and negotiations for candidates from EU member countries are going on. Also, a new European Parliament chairman and a new ECB chairman must be elected. Such a choice must traditionally reflect a delicate balance among major EU member governments. So, it could be a new game in October between the EU Commission and Italy.

Austerity and Risk of Financial Crisis

We are now in a stage in which the outgoing EU Commission has announced a hard line against Italy, demanding a violation procedure against the country for having excessive debt and deficit. However, the Italians are taking it easy. The Italian government is paying formal lip service by promising collaboration. But, “We do not argue with people busy filling their boxes” [being fired—ed.], said Antonio Maria Rinaldi, an economist considered to be among the fathers of the mini-BOT idea together with House budget committee head Claudio Borghi. Rinaldi was referring to commissioners Moscovici and Dombrovskis, both on their way out.

cc/Fabio Visconti

Claudio Borghi, Chairman of the Budget Committee of Italy’s Chamber of Deputies, and one of the intellectual authors of the mini-BOT.

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

Rinaldi, who has recently been elected to the European Parliament for the Lega—scoring the highest vote after Lega head Salvini—explained in an interview with journalist and blogger Luca Telese June 11 that, “Italy needs to start to grow again, not to go on with austerity. The amount of [government] debt is not relevant: What is relevant is its ratio to GDP. And we have to increase GDP. To do that, we need investments, and therefore expenditures.”

Italy won’t leave the Euro unless it is “forced to do it by an implosion of the system,” Rinaldi said. In that case, one must have a Plan B. The architects of the Euro system “have put a ship on the sea without lifeboats,” Rinaldi added, and “new storms could break out. . . . When the subprime bubble exploded globally, we had 4.8 trillions [euros] of junk assets. Today we have double that, 9.6 trillions. This is a real indication of the failure of EU policies.”

Rinaldi’s friend and former teacher, Paolo Savona, addressed the same financial risk in his first speech as head of the Stock Exchange Commission (Consob) June 11, a job to which he was recently appointed after a short experience as minister for EU Affairs in Italy’s Conte government: “Despite the [2008 financial—ed.] crisis, the amount of open derivative contracts on the global markets is still high, and the problem of exactly estimating their market value has not been solved, casting a shadow on balance sheet figures.” Government debt is not a problem, Savona stressed, if the economy grows; he pointed to the example of Japan, with ratio of debt to GDP above 200%. Savona called for an investment shock of at least 20 billion Euros in order to restart the Italian economy from a decades-long depression.

That depression has been caused by the fact that Italy has been forced to abide by EU rules for “indebted” countries, constantly reducing its expenditures while other EU members increased theirs. Such “pro-cyclical” rules must be changed, insisted Senate Finance and Treasury Committee head Alberto Bagnai, who is rumored to become Savona’s successor as Minister for EU Relations.

In an article published in the Financial Times June 6, Bagnai called for “a radical change of course” in EU economic policy, and in particular, to abolish the disastrous rules of the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP). Growth and employment, and not price stability, should be the target of economic policy, argues Bagnai, who called for a “European New Deal.”

The positions are apparently irreconcilable. If it comes to a confrontation between Italy refusing budget cuts and the EU institutions insisting on their austerity recipes, the confrontation could escalate to a point where the ECB threatens a replay of the Greek blackmail. At that point, Italy might pull out their asset. You can call it mini-BOT, or you can call it Lira—it will be a parallel currency, and a sovereign one. At that point, a totally new scenario will unfold.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE WEBCAST

As Global War Danger Grows,

the Ideas of Lyndon LaRouche

Are Needed More Than Ever

This is the edited transcript of the Schiller Institute’s June 14, 2019 New Paradigm webcast with the founder of the Schiller Institutes, Helga Zepp-LaRouche. She is interviewed by Harley Schlanger. A video of the webcast is available.

Harley Schlanger: Hello, I’m Harley Schlanger with the Schiller Institute. Welcome to our webcast with our founder and President Helga Zepp-LaRouche! Today is June 14, 2019, and we have just come from a very extraordinary event, last Saturday, on June 8, a memorial for Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. The title of the memorial was, “In Memoriam: The Triumph of Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.”

And Helga, it was an extremely moving emotional event, which provided people with some real insights into the extraordinary life of your husband. I’d like your thoughts on how it went and its importance.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: I think that everyone who participated in this memorial in New York, or in some of the live-streamed satellite events in a number of other American cities, was quite astounded and clearly moved, because the real Lyndon LaRouche came across absolutely clearly. His own words—because we had very important, beautiful video clips of his speeches—were integrated with the most profound Classical music performances, which were all on an extremely high level and of high quality. The whole composition, really, stunned people. As a matter of fact, I have not found anyone who did not say that they cried at various points of the event—it was incredibly truthful and moving.

EIRNS/Stuart Lewis

Schiller Institute Memorial, “The Triumph of Lyndon LaRouche,” held at the Salvation Army Centennial Temple in New York City on June 8, 2019.

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

Let me appeal to all of you, those listening or reading this later: Make the time to spend three hours and watch this memorial, which is available on the Schiller Institute website. Take the time, because there has never before been available, a better, so complete presentation, in which you can get the idea of who Lyndon LaRouche was, and who he is, and who he will be in the future of world developments. It is extremely important to clear away the false images—he had been vilified by the evil forces who prosecuted him and put him, an innocent man, in jail. Clearing his name is crucial today. His ideas are still the most advanced ideas of our time.

I’m saying this, not to diminish what other great leaders in other countries are doing, but I think anybody who engages in a study of the works of Lyn in depth, will admit that he contributed in so many fields—in economics, natural sciences, in the arts, in history, in philosophy. He contributed exceptionally important breakthroughs, which still need to be studied and understood by many people around the world, in order to solve the problems of this present world strategic situation.

So, I really encourage you: Look at this memorial and help us to clear his name. There is no greater difference than the real Lyndon LaRouche and the falsehoods spread against him. We now see the same kind of nasty, British-inspired mass media putting out such falsehoods against Trump, against Putin, against Xi Jinping. It’s all coming from the same British Empire directed geopolitical faction and its co-thinkers in the United States and on the continent of Europe. That’s my urgent appeal to you.

Schlanger: People can go to the Schiller Institute website and see it.

Now, also extremely important for what you were just saying, the exoneration of Lyndon LaRouche: On June 21, the LaRouche PAC is going to be releasing a video documentary called, “The LaRouche Case: Robert Mueller’s First Hit Job.” I think this also will add to the mobilization for an exoneration, which is an urgent requirement. It’s not just about bringing honor to Lyndon LaRouche. He doesn’t need the honor—he’s spoken for himself; he lived an extraordinary life. What’s necessary is that people recognize what you were just saying about his role, and internalize that, so that we can actually solve the problems that he was addressing during his life.

Helga, I don’t know if you’ve been involved in the production of this documentary, but is there anything you’d like to say about it?

Zepp-LaRouche: We plan to release the video on June 21. I would ask all who hear or read this discussion, please to help us spread the news simultaneously in all social media, internationally. Let’s build what we call in Germany, a Paukenschlag, a drumbeat, ahead of that release. This documentary will put a spotlight on the apparatus which is today’s war party. This is not an academic question, it is extremely urgent, because despite the tremendous potentials in the world, we are still sitting on a tremendous powder keg.

A Future Pregnant with Danger and Potential

Schlanger: We have the G20 summit coming up in Osaka, Japan on June 28-29. There’s a potential there, because President Trump has said he wishes to meet with President Putin of Russia and President Xi of China. But tremendous threats are emerging that President Putin addressed in several venues recently, including his warning that the relations between Russia and the United States are deteriorating. What can you tell us about what Putin has had to say, and what he’s been doing?

kremlin.ru

Russian President Vladimir Putin addressing the plenary session of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum on June 7, 2019.

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

Zepp-LaRouche: Putin said that the U.S.-Russia relationship is deteriorating “by the hour.” Prior to the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, of June 6-8, he addressed all the major international news agency heads, warning that the danger of a global catastrophe coming out of that deterioration, including nuclear war, is actually very much alive. And then—I thought very interesting—he appealed to the youth, saying the youth these days are concerned about environmental issues, but teenagers and children should actually be concerned about the global threat to the existence of civilization. I think that touches on something very truthful. The last time we were in a real serious crisis—at the beginning of the 1980s with the medium-range missile crisis—there were hundreds of thousands of people in the streets, warning of the danger of a third world war.

Although there are still some channels of communication between Russia and the U.S. now, it’s nowhere near the communication which existed between NATO and the Warsaw Pact during the Cold War.

On another occasion, Putin warned that the system of globalization is not functioning and is in a phase of complete deterioration. He attributed that to a lack of courage and the unwillingness to fix the causes of the 2008 crisis—demanding that changes must urgently be made.

A New Bretton Woods System

I must add to what Putin said that there is one conception, which would really remedy the situation, and it is one I really hope that the G20 leaders would be wise enough to put this on the agenda and adopt. It may not happen in this way—but it is nonetheless urgent. Those leaders should start with the truth that the present Western financial system is bankrupt. We are heading towards a new financial storm: All the signs are present. More likely than not it will happen this year, if certain changes are not made. Therefore the adequate policy for the G20 meeting is to put on the agenda, a New Bretton Woods system. As far as we can tell, this will not be adopted by the G20 because there are some countries that stupidly cling to the old paradigm and geopolitical manipulation.

It is for that reason that many years ago my husband had called for a partnership of the four most powerful countries: The United States, Russia, China, and India, which encompass the majority of the world population and which are somehow representative of all of these developing countries as well.

This idea does not exclude, on principle, countries such as Germany, Japan, Korea and others, who are also welcome to join, but you need a powerful combination of countries to impose a new credit system. We have to go away from monetarism: It was the neo-liberal monetarist system which has aggravated all of these problems we have internationally today. We therefore need a New Bretton Woods system as expressed in the intension of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and not the kind of Bretton Woods system as was implemented in the postwar period, because that system lacked, emphatically, mechanisms to have technology transfer to the developing sector. Lyn has been very emphatic that the New Bretton Woods must provide for large-scale credit generation for the development of the developing countries.

I would, therefore, urge all our viewers and readers: If you want to do anything for world peace and overcome the kinds of challenges we see right now in Iran, or concerning Iran, and other issues we should talk about, then help us to get the kind of mobilization going on the New Bretton Woods, and the idea that we have to get the United States to cooperation with the New Paradigm that is emerging clearly on the planet with the Belt and Road Initiative, now already joined by 126 countries.

Look at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum. That was also a very important element of the emerging new world order. Russia, far from being isolated, drew 1,900 participants to that Forum, including about 350 top leaders who signed about 650 major trade agreements. It was really an absolutely important meeting.

kremlin.ru

Leaders of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization countries, meeting at Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, June 14, 2019, reaffirmed their intent to ensure security for their region.

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

Comprehensive Strategic Partnerships

Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin agreed on a comprehensive strategic partnership for a new era. That partnership continues to be discussed at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, in meetings between Putin, Xi Jinping, and Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India. So the stage is really prepared for the G20. Hopefully, meetings between Trump and Putin, and Trump and Xi Jinping, and maybe also Modi, will take place and really put the New Paradigm on the agenda which is really so urgently needed.

Schlanger: I think it’s important to note that while all this diplomatic activity and discussion is underway for a Putin-Xi meeting, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzō Abe was recently in Moscow. These and other meetings are taking place, discussing specifically how to build a new productive system. We have nothing but foolish gibberish coming out of the United States and Western Europe, and we can get to that in a moment; but there was also a very important statement issued by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, regarding U.S.-Russian relations. I think that’s worth putting on the table, also.

White House/Shealah Craighead

U.S. President Donald Trump (right) and President of Poland Andrzej Duda, in a press conference at the White House, June 12, 2019.

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

Zepp-LaRouche: Yes. This was also the same type of the warning, that the danger of thermonuclear war is not yet eliminated. Speaking to the Primakov Readings international forum on June 11, Lavrov said, “From a political perspective, it’s of principal importance that Russia and the U.S. calm the rest of the world and pass a joint statement at a high level that there can be no victory in a nuclear war and therefore it is unacceptable and inadmissible.” He referred to the fact that such an agreement existed between the Soviet Union and the United States, saying, “We do not understand why they cannot reconfirm this position now.”

He also noted that concerning all of the different proposals concerning arms treaties and similar proposals, there has not yet been any positive response from the United States. So, I think this is also a matter of grave concern and something we should change.

Washington Needs to Speak with One Voice

Schlanger: Talking about the United States, we see a very strange pattern, which is continuing, of Donald Trump saying one thing, while others in his administration are saying the opposite. For example, in a joint press conference on June 12 with the Polish President Andrzej Duda a couple days ago, Trump interrupted the Polish President, who was talking about the dangers of Russia, to say, “But I hope that Poland is going to have a great relationship with Russia. I hope we’re going to have a great relationship with Russia, and, by the way, [with] China and many other countries.”

But then he has people in his cabinet such as his Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, and his National Security Advisor, John Bolton, threatening countries, talking about the rebellion in Hong Kong, that this is important, and that Trump came out in support of the demonstrations against the government there.

Within hours of an attack on two Japanese oil tankers carrying Iranian oil in the Gulf of Oman, Pompeo issued a so-called “Government Assessment” that said Iran was responsible, thus putting us, again, on the verge of a potential war there in the Persian Gulf.

Office of the Supreme Leader of Iran

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe (center), meeting with the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei (right), in Tehran, Iran on June 13, 2019.

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

This occurred right after Prime Minister Abe was in Tehran as a mediator, in a sense, between the United States and Iran, and also before the Osaka summit.

Where do you see us heading with these crises?

Zepp-LaRouche: The Chinese and Russian leaders have said repeatedly, that they very clearly differentiate between President Trump and the other members of his cabinet. The only problem is that Trump says something positive, and then in the next moment his cabinet members do the opposite, for foreign leaders—in China, Russia, but also in Europe, in Germany, in France—it makes it very difficult to have confidence that the word of Trump really will prevail, and that is a serious strategic problem.

Trump has said very positive things concerning China, but then, Pompeo, in his capacity as Secretary of State, actually a month ago, met with so-called “democracy” groups from Hong Kong and, in a certain sense, meddled in the internal affairs of China which then adds to the extremely high tensions that exist because of the trade war between the U.S. and China. Concerning the situation in Iran: This is very dangerous. This could lead to a new war with Iran, and we in the past, have always noted that such a war immediately means confrontation with Russia and China, which could go totally out of control and could lead to a third world war.

DoD/Michael Gross

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo briefs the media after an apparent June 13 attack on two Japanese tankers in the Gulf of Oman, blaming Iran.

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

So, this time, just hours after Prime Minister Abe from Japan was in Tehran to attempt to mediate, which was supported by President Trump, this attack on these two tankers in the Gulf of Oman occurred, and within hours, obviously without the ability to prove it, Pompeo accused Iran of being behind it, putting out a so-called “Government Assessment.” Now, within hours, you can’t find out what really happened. The American strategic analyst Pat Lang asked the question: “I would like to know how many agencies of the U.S. Intelligence Community concur” in that assessment?

Obviously, this is a very dangerous situation, because once anything more develops in this region, this could really threaten world peace in the most immediate way.

Sabotage of Trump Is Extension of Russiagate

I think it’s a problem. I don’t know how difficult it is for President Trump to solve, but I don’t think it’s very good for the future of international relations if these different voices come from the United States on almost every topic. Trump is attempting something positive, as in the case of North Korea, then it’s being sabotaged because at the last moment in the Hanoi summit, demands were injected which ruined it.

The same happened with the U.S.-China tariff confrontation: Both sides said they were very optimistic they could find a solution, and then, all of a sudden demands were put in the negotiations by the U.S. side which demanded that China abandon its very successful economic model, and that was naturally unacceptable to China. Why should China change a model which has had the most unbelievable success in the last 40 years, and which is now a hope and inspiration for many other countries in the world to do likewise, and overcome underdevelopment and poverty?

In the meantime, China’s Ministry of Commerce put out a 10-page White Paper, “U.S. Gains in China—U.S. Trade,” refuting, point by point, the arguments made about why this trade imbalance exists. One of the most important points, is that the trade imbalance exists because China’s exports to the United States consist largely of low-technology goods, and that if the United States used the same rules for its trade with China as it uses, for example, with France, 1,300 items of mostly high-technology exports from the United States to China would be so treated, the U.S. deficit would be reduced by one-third.

So, who put in these changes for Chinese structural reforms in the last minute? Well, I don’t know; obviously, somebody in the negotiation team from the side of the United States.

But this is actually a pattern: Trump attempts something positive, then sabotage occurs, and the effort goes nowhere. If the Trump voters and other concerned people really want to do something about that, they have to give President Trump the backing, so that he can get some better advisors than these people who lead him in the wrong direction every single time.

Schlanger: We’ve seen this before, Helga, before previous summits, when Trump was going to meet with Putin and Xi Jinping in Buenos Aires last November, his meeting was sabotaged, at that time by the Kerch Strait incident. Similarly Trump was prevented from meeting with Putin during his trip to France to commemorate the end of World War I.

So, I think you see this British constant intervention. And we’re going to continue to expose that, because it’s directly related to what is coming out on the Russiagate story: That what we’ve said from the beginning, is that the real issue of Russiagate is the strategic opposition of leading forces of the British Empire to Trump establishing new relations with Russia and China.

Investigation of the Investigators

Helga, there have been some developments since the last time we’ve spoken, with the “investigation of the investigators”; a letter from Assistant U.S. Attorney General Stephen Boyd to Congressman Jerrold Nadler about the importance of this investigation under way by Attorney General Barr and U.S. Attorney John Durham.

How do you see the Russiagate story unfolding?

Zepp-LaRouche: It’s very promising. The letter by Boyd to Nadler talks about the fact that there is a very broad investigation, involving U.S. and foreign intelligence services. And I think that the investigations are quite promising, under Barr’s leadership. I hope that Barr and Durham will bring the whole story out.

The question here is a question of time. Special Counsel Robert Mueller took more than two years to issue his final report. And if Barr’s investigation is anywhere near as slow, or takes that much time, it may be too late, because events are really very pressing.

The need for people in government to bring Bill Binney into hearings—he is the former Technical Director of the National Security Agency—is now even more urgent. He is part of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). A group from the VIPS has conducted a forensic investigation proving technically that there could not have been Russian hacking of the Democratic National Committee’s computer server. That story is coming out internationally.

Mr. Binney was just interviewed by a Swedish blog site. The questions need to be presented to Binney, who met with then CIA Director Pompeo at the request of President Trump, in October 2017. This must be taken seriously, because there was no Russian hacking. There was collusion on the part of Trump’s enemies with another foreign power, namely, British intelligence, and it’s very, very urgent that the full story, including Binney’s evidence and analysis, come out.

Now, the New York Times reported that already some CIA agents were investigated, and I think that there are all the signs of extreme nervousness of the coup apparatus, that their crimes could be unearthed. But, the question of time and an educated electorate is really of the essence, so you should heed our efforts to spread the word of all of these things.

Schlanger: We were the ones who put out the original story on the British background of the Mueller investigation, so we’ve been way ahead of the curve, and people who have been looking at our website and reading our material know that.

U.S. Labor Begins to Rebel at the ‘Green New Deal’

Now, Helga, just because we’re running a little short on time, I want to switch to another subject, which is quite fascinating, which is the rebellion of the U.S. labor movement against the “Green New Deal”: The Democrats seem to have nothing to offer except “impeach Trump,” and “destroy what’s left of U.S. industry and manufacturing.” Labor unions in California are saying the Green New Deal would be a disaster.

There’s a big push globally, now, for this Green movement. In the United States there’s resistance to it, but this has to spread, doesn’t it?

Zepp-LaRouche: It’s very promising that the California trade unionists are now moving against it by emphatically making the point that this would destroy the jobs and livelihood of millions of people in practically every area which is affected.

In Europe, ‘Climate Protectionism’ Reigns

This green environmentalism is a global offensive. In Europe, especially in Germany, unfortunately, this is really a very serious matter, because of a series of manipulations prior to the European Parliament election in late May. First was the “children’s crusade,” led by the poor Greta Thunberg, a Swedish 16-year-old, who is completely manipulated by people like Kevin Anderson, who had already advocated back in 2000 that the carrying capacity of the Earth is only a half-billion people, because, he says, global temperature will go up by 4°C or even 6°C.

Then there was the “Fridays for Future” mobilization, and some mainstream media manipulation of a so-called “influencer” video produced shortly before the election in Germany. As a result of all of this, which has the typical hallmarks of intelligence operations manipulating public opinion in such a way, the Greens are now almost the leading party in the polls; they could become, if there would be now early elections—which could happen in Germany, because of the collapse of the CDU and the Social Democracy. And if as a result of such early elections, a Green Chancellor is chosen by the Bundestag, this would be the end of Germany as an industrial nation. And because of the power and size of the German economy, it would also mean the end of Europe.

This Green climate protection craziness, has reached such proportions of absolute hysteria in Germany, that people don’t discuss anything else anymore. But it is as much a British coup against Germany as the Russiagate coup was against Trump. We will put out some more documentation of that, but I think if you consider what the Morgenthau Plan was supposed to do to defeated Germany after World War II, this is a Morgenthau Plan five times over. It has to be reversed!

More and more people are waking up to reality. Even in Germany, some industrialists and others are saying that the exit from nuclear energy without having an alternative was a big mistake, and Germany has to have nuclear energy.

And in the United States, there is also a very beautiful thing, which I think should be an inspiration to trade unionists all over the world: A really beautiful leaflet by Roger Calven from the U.S. Plumbers Local 5 in Washington, D.C., demanding that this British Green New Deal should be defeated, because it’s an effort to re-colonize the United States. And then he demands, in the context of NASA, that all trade unionists should be trained to set up a permanent station on the Moon, to learn how to do mining on the Moon, for example, for helium-3; to learn how to use robots and be trained after 2030 for interstellar operations.

Basically, train the whole workforce to deal with the next economic platform, as my husband would have called it, and learn the skills required for workers and trade unionists to work in space. In the context of Trump’s space program, where he promised he would put humans on the Moon by 2024, I think this is fantastic, because you need this kind of in-depth mobilization of the population to back up what Trump is doing—especially because the Congress is dragging its feet in the financing of this absolutely necessary science-driver program.

So, I think we are in an incredible period, where people should become active, they should work with the Schiller Institute, because we have the concepts which are absolutely required to solve this present crisis.

The Triumph of Lyndon LaRouche

Schlanger: Helga, just reflecting on what we’ve been discussing, it again brings to mind again the importance of the memorial event, which put a focus on your husband’s intervention in every single one of these areas! Strategic, scientific, cultural, how it is that we have to prepare ourselves for the future. I think it would be very useful if you just summarize the importance of this event to provide people with a direction forward.

Zepp-LaRouche: Well, you know, it is a fact that most people are so much suffering under the burden of getting their livelihood together, just to make ends meet, which is becoming more difficult for most people, and they don’t have time to think about the future, they don’t have time to think about a vision, where humanity should be a hundred years from now. That is why looking at the work of Lyndon LaRouche is so crucial, because, you know, he is the real America! If you want to have any person representing the best identity of America as a republic, it is Lyn.

He had a beautiful vision of what the New Paradigm would be. He wrote a book, Earth’s Next Fifty Years, and beyond that he had the most incredible ideas about how the world would be different, once we had thermonuclear fusion as a commercial energy source; we would have raw materials security and energy security—raw materials security because we could separate all the waste into its isotopes and put it back together in new raw materials, including nuclear waste, so this problem would be solved as well.

And then, international cooperation on space research and space travel gives the kind of international cooperation which is absolutely needed. And let me say, for me, the recent Event Horizon Telescope’s imaging of a black hole fifty-five million light-years away is the best example that international cooperation is an absolute must, if civilization is to survive. Because you could not have imaged that black hole in one country, not even in Russia, which has 11 time zones. It required the collaboration of radio telescopes in Spain, in Chile, in the Antarctic, in the United States, and four other places, in order to get the kind of width needed to make the imaging of this incredible physical phenomenon, about which all known physics breaks down.

And it shows that we have to make breakthroughs, building on Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity.

We are really on the verge of a new era, which requires all the creativity of all people of all nations, working together for our common aims. And there is no other American who stands for this beautiful conception of the future of humanity, than my beloved husband: And therefore, I really ask you, help us to exonerate him, and help us to get the United States into this New Paradigm, because that’s what the whole world wishes for.

Schlanger: Well, Helga, thank you for your words of inspiration. And we’ll see you again, next week.

Zepp-LaRouche: Yes, next week.

II. Development, or Green Genocide?

INTERVIEW WITH KRIS STEWART

What Is Causing Massive Wildfires In the U.S. West: The Environment —Or Environmentalism?

BLM Nevada/Sebastian Christensen

Sawtooth National Forest Interagency Hotshot Crew deploy to the Martin Fire on July 5, 2018.

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

EIR contacted Kris Stewart in Washington, D.C., where she was discussing with the White House and Members of Congress, the real cause of the Martin Fire—and of many other devastating wildfires—and the urgent changes needed in Federal land management practices. Mrs. Stewart was interviewed by EIR editor, Paul Gallagher on May 12 after her return to Nevada.

In the summer of 2018, people across America read, saw and heard constant news about tremendous wildfires in California, such as the deadly Camp Fire, the Woolsey Fire, and the Mendocino Complex Fire. It appeared that all sources, from California state officials to Wikipedia and the New York Times, focussed on these widespread and fierce wildfires being “linked to climate change” or “the new normal of global warming.” As usual, these phrases were repeated as truisms without evidence, particularly since the most recent period of extended drought and heat across the state had broken in 2016, giving way to two years of very significant rain and snowpack.

Although sparking from PG&E’s high-voltage lines, crossing land full of summer-dry vegetation, was publicized as a fire trigger, there was no media coverage of the issue of land management of public lands in California, beset by cuts in funds since Arnold Schwarzenegger was governor of California, and by the environmental policy of leaving public forest and range lands completely alone. Only President Trump brought this issue of poor land management up during the 2018 fire season, and the only mention of it in national media was in—generally dismissive—coverage of the President.

In fact, the biggest fire in the West in 2018 was not in California, and it is difficult to find any notices of it in national media coverage last summer. This was the Martin Fire, which burned half a million acres of ranch, rangeland, and ranch structures and improvements across eight counties in northwestern Nevada. Burned bare were large private ranch lands, and even larger areas of Federal land on which those ranches have had grazing permits for their herds for many decades, but with progressively more limitations imposed by the Federal Bureau of Land Management, to a few months each spring and summer. Environmental lawsuits under the Environmental Protection Act have been allowed to characterize livestock grazing as “dangerous fuel reduction activity and development.”

One major victim was the well-known “Ninety-Six Ranch” of Paradise Valley, Nevada, established in Nevada’s statehood year, 1864, and operated continuously by the Stock and Stewart families for 155 years. The Stewart family has issued an “Urgent Call to Save the Great American West.”

NPS

A firefighter protecting a fence from fire during a prescribed burn.

BLM

The Martin Fire grows to almost 400,000 acres, as a specially-equipped DC-10 drops a retardant to limit the fire on June 5, 2018.

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

EIR: Please tell us about the Martin Fire.

Kris Stewart: The Martin Fire started in the early hours of July 5, 2018 up Martin Creek in Paradise Valley, Nevada. The ignition was linked to fireworks. While our ranch posted a $10,000 reward within 3 days, and other individuals as well as the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Humboldt County followed suit, no suspects were ever identified or arrested. Had the fire been called in early, it is very likely that it could have been extinguished by our local volunteer fire department; however, no call was made and by the time firefighters responded, the fire had taken hold, due to extreme levels of dangerous fuels— excessive vegetation—on the rangeland. When daylight came, the fire had already taken over 25,000 acres and went on to take between 430,000 and 460,000 acres. Vegetative fuel levels on the rangeland taken by the Martin Fire had been allowed to reach levels of 1,000% of normal, by the BLM’s own estimates. Further, even the usable forage was at record levels, and this was after the ranches with permits had finished the grazing they were allowed.

In the specific case of our range, we completed monitoring our use two weeks prior to the ignition of the fire, and our records indicate that we had used just 18-20% of allowed forage [in the allowed time], and that overall fuel levels exceeded 1,000% of normal levels. We had requested additional time to graze off these fuels but were denied. We moved our cattle on the schedule dictated by our permit. The Martin Fire took more than 64,000 acres of our 73,000-acre grazing permit as well as over 6,300 acres of our private ranch lands.

The Ninety-Six Ranch is Nevada’s oldest ranch. We . . . have grazed our cattle on these same rangelands for 155 years. Our use predates federal land management agencies’ involvement by many decades. The USFS [United States Forest Service] became involved in lands more than 5,000 feet above sea level in 1906, and the BLM [came in] with the Taylor Grazing Act in 1934. Our grazing levels and use schedules were not cut or altered by that act—showing that our use, moderated by weather and conditions, was in keeping with best practices and good stewardship standards. This use and these standards continued through both world wars and into the 1960s.

Then, the modern environmental movement began to inform range management studies and policy, and environmental lawsuits caused a shift in grazing policies. Once considered engaged partners, ranchers were viewed as the enemy, as environmental radicals began to portray any human-guided use on the range as negative, and as a negative impact on the plant communities and wildlife.

CC/Pierre Markuse

An aerial view of the eastern part of the Martin Fire in Nevada, July 8, 2018.

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

Our records indicate that in the 154 years preceding the Martin Fire, our lands have never burned like this. This is due to diligent and careful management. But today, we graze at levels less than 30% of historic levels. By the BLM’s own admission, fuel levels on our permits were allowed to grow to from 200% to 1,000% of normal. We and many other permittees have discussed and warned of the impending fire danger with the agency’s personnel for decades, but no changes have been allowed to our amount of use or seasons of use.

Each year more of the West burns. Federal land managers have allowed land management to become political and a bureaucratic nightmare, rather than a common- sense, science-based exercise.

EIR: What did the Martin Fire do to your ranching operation?

Stewart: Our operations have been devastated by the Martin Fire. We are left with over a half-million acres of charred black ground, scattered with burned-up animals. A cheatgrass monoculture will quickly establish itself on the range.

For 155 years, our operations have been based on completing a “big circle” starting with calving in March-April on our home meadows, then branding and turning our cattle out a side gate to BLM rangeland, moving them through more private ground leading to the USFS mountain range, summering them on that higher elevation range, then coming home usually to home range and meadows and reusing new or residual vegetation on the BLM land in late fall to early winter. We generally pasture cattle on our private valley land during the winter and feed natural meadow hay during the hardest 100 days of winter. The fire took away the BLM land and transition range between the BLM and USFS. Without this, we have been forced to keep cattle home on meadows that would have been irrigated and grown for hay, leaving us without necessary fall pasture. This forced us to purchase hay for fall and winter consumption. Last year, that out-of-pocket cost exceeded $160,000. It is likely that we will need to do the same for at least another 2-3 years, essentially exhausting our personal savings and retirement accounts.

Additionally, the re-seeding efforts conducted by the BLM have been largely ineffective. Larkspur, an alkaloid and killer of cattle, has taken hold on the range along with large amounts of thistle and cheatgrass. Aerially-seeded areas look like a complete failure and drill-seeded areas look only slightly better. We strongly advocate for our cattle to be allowed to graze beginning this fall and winter to remove the cheatgrass threat.

Before the Martin Fire our BLM and USFS permits were considered prime Sage Grouse habitat. Today, there is not a single living sage grouse left on our BLM permit. The birds cannot and will not come back until a healthy sage brush ecosystem is restored.

The bottom line is that restoration of rangeland health requires a strong and well-timed grazing component: To disturb the [fire-hardened soil] crust, deposit fertilizer, spread seed, and remove plant matter including the invasive cheatgrass. It is the most natural and only effective means of restoring the soil to a healthy condition.

BLM/A. Hedrick

An invasive winter annual weed, Cheatgrass was the primary fuel for the Martin Fire.

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

EIR: What is it that burned so fiercely over so large an area? What was the fuel?

Stewart: The main fuel that caused the Martin Fire to burn so hot is cheatgrass. This is an invasive annual, originally from the Eurasian steppe. It outcompetes native grasses, including perennial bunch grasses. This, combined with the native plant community—including several varieties of sage brush which had all been allowed to become overly pernicious through under grazing—allowed the fire to burn hot and literally take everything above ground, in some places sterilizing the soil and making rehabilitation difficult without animal fertilizer inputs.

‘Ranchers Are the True Range Environmentalists’

EIR: How has the Stock/Stewart family historically managed your range land?

Stewart: Our goals are resource health for the long term. The fact that the Taylor Grazing Act was put into place to combat overuse of the grazing resource and our family faced no cuts or alteration of our use, illustrates that we were and continue to be good and responsible stewards of the resource.

We have pushed back against the cuts that the federal agencies have imposed over the past sixty years because the changes are politically driven rather than based on science and in the best interests of the resource or our operations. We have generally been rebuffed in our efforts to restore livestock grazing to historic or traditional levels.

But since the fire, our objections to the direction of federal land management over the past sixty years are finally being heard. We take great interest in and give much credence to range scientists like Allan Savory, who has studied and observed that livestock grazing mimics the “hoof effect” of migrating herds throughout history. Their hooves disturb the soil in a healthy manner, allowing rain and snow water, seeds and fertilizer to be absorbed throughout the soil. They obviously also deposit some of those seeds as well as a completely natural and healthy fertilizer to the soil. . . . Without surface disruption, soil crusts and moisture and healthy microbes cannot penetrate the surface and build healthy soil communities.

American Folklife Center/Carl Fleischhauer

Moving cattle into a willow branding corral on the Ninety-Six Ranch.

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

EIR: Does preventing wildfires play a part in this historical management?

Stewart: We have worked hard to avoid devastating wildfires throughout our use of this rangeland. Rarely, that could mean limited, controlled burns, but generally it meant well-timed grazing of appropriate duration and fuel reduction levels.

But that goal has become less achievable over the past several decades, owing to increased pressure on the federal agencies by radical environmental groups whose stated goal is the complete removal of domestic livestock from the range and landscape.

EIR: What would you say has been the long-term or fundamental cause of BLM and Forest Service officials’ hostility to your management of your range and particularly, your Federally permitted use of Federal land for livestock? Is the opposition ideological? Environmental?

Stewart: Federal agency hostility toward ranchers and grazing has been many decades in the making. Range management has been lumped into the environmental sciences—which in the United States, and much of the western world, has become politicized and nearly religious in nature. Many of those educated within this system, which vilifies human-guided use and active management of land, sit at every level of the state and federal bureaucracy and decision-making apparatus. It is a tough uphill battle to push back and demonstrate that grazing and ranchers are the true environmentalists out on the range.

The agencies and well-funded environmental groups have the power and most of the funds for research and lawsuits. These environmental groups also exploit loopholes in the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) to collect tax dollars to fund their assault on ranchers, Federal agencies and grazing advocates. Our research, records and advocacy efforts are generally grass roots, and conducted by ranchers themselves, rather than by official range scientists.

We are Davids in cowboy hats battling Goliaths in the form of the Sierra Club, Western Watersheds, WWF [World Wide Fund for Nature], and the U.S. government.

Another Devastating Wildfire Season?

EIR: You have appealed strongly to the White House to act on this situation, including the impact on county after ranching county across Nevada. Has the President responded?

Stewart: President Trump responded on December 21, 2018 with an Executive Order, EO 13855, “Promoting Active Management of America’s Forests, Rangelands, and Other Federal Lands To Improve Conditions and Reduce Wildfire Risk,” followed on January 2, 2019 by Department of Interior [DOI] Secretarial Order 3372, “Reducing Wildfire Risks on Department of the Interior Land Through Active Management,” aimed at practical, common sense reforms. The USFS has not followed suit with their own Secretarial order, but are slowly (very slowly) moving forward on similar reforms. The President has an excellent Secretary of Interior in David Bernhardt, and an absolute rock star at the helm of the BLM in Casey Hammond.

But bureaucracies are making roll-out of the reforms slow, and are really putting the West at great danger of another devastating wildfire season [from late spring until winter rains arrive at the end of the calendar year].

This fall, the BLM and other Federal agencies sought substantial supplemental funding to restore and rehab the lands burned in the Martin Fire and elsewhere. We applaud the fact that the Trump administration has recognized proper and proactive range and forest management as key to reducing fire danger in the West and has warned that future emergency funds after natural disasters may be reduced unless proactive strategies are used to better manage the resources.

EIR: What are your hopes of a change from the “environmentalist” Federal policy on managing western lands? Can the burning be stopped?

Left to right: Paul Gallagher, ranchers Kris Stewart and Pat Trask, and Robert Baker meet in Washington, D.C.

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

Stewart: Our family originally went back to D.C. to tell our story in the hopes that President Trump would hear it and respond. He has, and we are thrilled. It will be an uphill battle to dismantle the bureaucracy that seeks to derail the reforms he has ordered. Whether our family operation will survive this battle is unclear, but if we have a part in saving U.S. cattle ranching and our way of life, it will have been worth the time, expense and trouble for the next generation.

But we must note that FEMA [the Federal Emergency Management Agency] awarded Nevada, and those of us harmed by the Martin Fire, zero dollars. Apparently not enough people were injured and most of the land was federally owned.

We will continue to speak out. I will conduct a speaking tour this summer to educate ranchers in each western state about the new tools made available by President Trump’s Executive Order and DOI Secretarial Order 3372, and how to implement those reforms on their own [Federal] permits before wildfire takes them.

Visit Stewart's Ninety-Six Ranch website: stewarts96ranch.com

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

GERMAN ECO-DICTATORSHIP?

Decarbonization of Germany’s Transportation Sector Will Be Astronomically Costly

by Andrea Andromidas

June 18—The German government has foolishly set a goal of achieving 100% decarbonization of the entire transport sector by 2050. What that will mean, and what it will cost for the transportation sector, was studied by the Research Association for Combustion Engines (FVV) and prominently presented at the International Internal Engine Conference in Baden-Baden, Germany on February 26-27. The study was carried out with the collaboration of partners from the automotive, chemical, mineral oil and supplier industries, as well an energy provider, and presents the overview that the government should have provided to the public before rushing headlong into what it calls the “great transformation.”

The study, “Defossilizing the Transportation Sector, Options and Requirements for Germany,” first observes that even under the most optimistic development perspectives in combustion engines, the goal of 100% decarbonization can only be reached if no fossil fuels whatsoever are used.

Therefore, the study considers a complete zero-carbon conversion exclusively on the basis of renewable energy sources, even though such an approach is considered unrealistic for various reasons. It compares the conversion costs in terms of fuel production, expansion of relevant infrastructure, and vehicle costs, for the three alternative options to fossil fuels:

1. Direct use of electricity from batteries

2. Generation of hydrogen via electrolysis

3. Generation of PtX (Power-to-x, electricity-based) synthetic (non-fossil) fuels.

The study concludes that the costs in each case would reach gigantic proportions: 1.3 trillion euros for the first scenario, 1.4 trillion euros for the second.

The third is somewhat less expensive, depending on the synthetic fuel used:

PtX e-methane 796 billion euros

E-methanol 818 billion euros

Dimethyl Ether (DME) 955 billion euros

FT Diesel/gasoline 972 billion euros

This FVV study is useful in that it puts into perspective the folly of striving for 100% decarbonization and the claims associated with it. However, if the European Union and the German government decide nonetheless to ram such prohibitive scenarios through, the drastic drop in energy consumption could not be enforced without dictatorial measures.

One need only read the proposals from the think tank Agora Verkehrswende, which acts as an advisor to the German government, to realize that what is being promoted is in fact an eco-dictatorship in the name of allegedly “saving the planet.”

Representatives of real economic and industrial interests in Germany would be well advised to expose the danger forcefully, and stop it before it’s too late.

NORTH AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK

Transform U.S.-Mexico-Central America Relations with Infrastructure Projects

by Brian Lantz

Photo in the San Antonio Business Journal

NADBank officers (left to right): Salvador Lopez, Chief Environmental Officer; Alex Hinojosa, Managing Director; and Calixto Mateos-Hanel, Deputy Managing Director.

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

June 15—There are ongoing discussions, in the context of the U.S.-Mexico border crisis, that the existing North American Development Bank (NADB) could be made a vehicle for transformative U.S.-Mexico-Central America infrastructure projects.

Today, the Managing Director of the NADB let it be known that, “in the hallways of D.C. somewhere, a number of folk—both in the Administration, Congress and others—have talked about expanding the Bank to help with Mexico’s southern border. We would probably say, ‘Yeah, let’s do it!’ But that is not our decision.”

The remarks of Managing Director Alex Hinojosa came in response to an intervention by EIR, at a June 6 special seminar in Houston, Texas, “The North American Development Bank and the Next Quarter Century,” co-sponsored by the Mexico Center of Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy and by the North American Development Bank (Banco de Desarrollo de America del Norte).

Thinking outside the box, EIR’s Brian Lantz proposed that, given the tentative agreement reached between López Obrador and Trump on the need to address the underlying causes of the refugee flows and border crisis, and the broader desperate need for large scale infrastructure throughout the region, it would seem to make sense to now upgrade the NADB “by orders of magnitude” into a vehicle to provide cross-border financing, including incorporating the private sector and other investments. Such an approach, Lantz stressed, is required to avoid endemic conflict and confrontation between neighbors.

The room virtually “lit up” after that. The following responses and discussion ensued. NADB Deputy Director Calixto Mateor-Hanel, PhD, responded enthusiastically, and—from the audience—the author of the original NADB proposal for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), heartily endorsed the thrust of Lantz’s comments and emphasized the original intent of the Bank to reach far beyond the border area. “This is an important moment in history,” Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda, PhD, exclaimed, “with enormous potential.”

The little-known North American Development Bank was part of the environmental and labor “side agreements” to NAFTA, to secure (Democratic) Congressional votes for passage in 1994. Its purpose is preserving, protecting and enhancing the environment through financing of infrastructure. The Bank is bi-national, not tri-national, being jointly funded by the governments of the U.S. and Mexico, and is overseen by a board composed of top U.S. government officials, including the Secretaries of State and Treasury, and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and their Mexican government equivalents. The Bank, being such a cross-border government bank, is uniquely situated to fund the large-scale infrastructure projects that have been mooted by the López-Obrador Government of Mexico and the Trump Presidency in Washington—but only if its mandate and funding are enormously expanded.

Solution to the Refugee Crisis

The NADB now has more importance, given the U.S.-Mexico agreement reached over the June 8-9 weekend, to curb the flow of refugees crossing the Mexico-U.S. border into the United States. Speaking June 14 at Mexican President López Obrador’s daily press conference, Foreign Minister Marcelot Ebrard gave an upbeat briefing on the progress his government was making in implementing the terms of the prior week’s agreement with the Trump administration, including deploying 6,000 National Guardsmen to the Mexican-Guatemalan border in order to prevent undocumented persons from crossing into Mexico. But the most important progress in those talks, is moving toward the implementation phase of the regional development program for southern Mexico and northern Central America, which Mexico announced May 20.

Ebrard reported that a working group is already in place, with representatives from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, as well as many state agencies, to get the regional program going. Ebrard stressed that money to finance this plan is a key issue. Potential commitments from the United States to provide $5.8 billion for Central American development projects and $2 billion more for southern Mexico have, however, not been confirmed, Ebrard reported.

Meeting this immediate financial commitment, plus providing much more, begs the existence of a financial infrastructure and corresponding masses of national credit for new, high energy-density and high-technology economic projects, in order to solve the crisis encompassing one of the largest regional migratory flows in the world, from Central America up to and across the U.S.-Mexico border.

The collapse of U.S. national infrastructure, also the subject of informal discussion during the Rice University event, requires a “outside the box” approach: Such an approach is found in Lyndon LaRouche’s “Four New Laws to Save the U.S.A. Now!” that LaRouche deemed “an immediate necessity” back in 2014. Great projects await a new credit system to carry them out.

The NADB and Politics

The NADB is now asking the U.S. Congress for its first increase in capitalization, as it is integrated with the new U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which is replacing NAFTA. A number of limitations in the Bank’s current mandate must be removed if the Bank is to be really useful. There is the matter of the Bank’s current, limited geographical mandate, which covers only a narrow band along both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border, 300 kilometers into Mexico and 100 km into the United States. Further, there are limits on the sectors to which the Bank’s loans can be made. The Bank finances small water, energy (wind and solar), and waste management infrastructure. Its current maximum lending capital is only $540 million in paid-in capital, which it maximizes by leveraging that capital, bringing in additional agencies, banks and private capital. The thinking now has to be much bigger.

The author of the actual Bank legislation later came up to introduce himself to EIR’s Brian Lantz. In conversation, he told Lantz that, indeed, the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) of the Franklin Delano Roosevelt era had been a model looked to in originally formulating the NADB proposal as a design that could be scaled up, as Roosevelt expanded the RFC. For example, the Bank is finalizing an agreement with Mexican pension funds to invest through a new “vehicle.” The NADB already allows for 25-year payback on its loans, which is critical for large infrastructure projects.

Finally, there is the needed flexibility in decision making. The managers of the Bank pointed out that they have very little discretionary decision-making power. Every loan has to be approved by the board composed of top U.S. and Mexican cabinet officials—both the loan and whether the loan meets the Bank’s environmental criteria.

After two sessions and a lunch, seminar attendees were presented with much less substantial comments by Congressman Anthony Cuellar (D-Texas), in a short “armchair” discussion with Antonio Garza, former U.S. Ambassador to Mexico. Rep. Cuellar made a point of saying he always supported the “NADB,” but punted on supporting a big expansion of its mandate. Cuellar added that House Financial Services Committee Chair, Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), will now move the current NADB bill, a bill that will increase capitalization by some amount and align it with the new USMCA. But that bill, which Congresswoman Waters plans to move forward, is not a proposal that includes the required magnitude of development so excitedly discussed at the Rice seminar.

Officials of the Bank pointedly informed this author that they cannot lobby the Congress, but they can, and will, circulate their information, “so you can lobby the Congress.” There is plenty of work to go round, but no one can argue that the means do not exist.

III. LaRouche’s View of Man the Fire-Bringer

FROM LAROUCHE’S WEBCAST OF APRIL 11, 2009

‘Seven Sequential Points’ on Science, Economy, and the Future of Humanity

This is an excerpt from Lyndon LaRouche’s April 11, 2009 webcast. The entire address and the Q&A exchange were published in EIR of April 17, 2009 under the title, “President Obama’s ‘Narcissus Syndrome.’” The video is available.

Now, I’m going to deal with seven questions, now, with technical questions, and the first one, I’ll formulate carefully, as I’ve done here, again because of sensitivity. But then, I shall just take the other six questions, in my usual style.

First thing, is clear the decks. There’s something we have to get out of our system as a nation, now. It’s a hot subject, people don’t like to take it on, but it must be taken on. If we don’t take it on, this nation is not going to survive.

The first popular delusion—I’m going to address a total of seven delusions, which affect policy now—the first popular delusion, we must clear off the table of our nation’s policymaking immediately, is the following; otherwise, our nation has no chance of surviving this presently onrushing global crisis:

FIGURE 1

Arctic Sea Ice Refreezes: Where’s the Global Warming?

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

Source: National Center for Environmental Prediction/NOAA.

These satellite images show the Earth’s Arctic regions over the recent 11 years (North America is on the left, Eurasia on the right; Alaska and the Aleutian Islands, as well as Siberia and the Kamchatka Peninsula, are at the top of the image). The white areas are solid ice cap; the black areas are ice-free ocean; the darker gray areas (shades of purple, on the website) are sea ice of varying thicknesses. The images from 1997 show a much warmer climate than today, due to the effects of that years’s El Niño. The 2008 data shows very widespread ice pack. For instructive daily images and animated graphics, see the website cited above.

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

This planet has recently entered two phases of a relatively long-term process of global cooling! In the immediate present, we have entered a relatively shorter term, of some years to come, which is already a solar phase of global cooling, as indicated by the recent, ominous drop in sunspot activity. That is, sunspot activity dropped, as this happened now, which demonstrates we are entering a solar-determined global cooling, as typified by the recapping of the icecap on the Arctic. The Arctic melting has ended; the Arctic freeze is back, bigger than ever! [Figure 1] We are now in global cooling! Not global warming: Global warming is supposed to happen in Hell. And those who like that should go there!

All right. At the same time, we’ve entered a long-term tendency toward an expansion of glaciation, as the freezing-over of the icecap on the Arctic has shown. This second cooling phase has to do with three, long-term systems in the Solar System, which are the usual reason for the past 2 million years of the ebbs and flows of a continuing process of glaciation of the planet. In other words, from about 17,000 B.C., there was a significant melt, after about 100,000 years, which resulted in the Mediterranean becoming a Mediterranean Sea, not a lake; and later transformed the Black Sea from a freshwater lake, into a salt sea! And so forth. And this has gone on.

We’re now back; we have reached the peak low, in terms of the melt, and the glaciation process is now increasing. And this is increasing because of three long-term factors in the solar orbits which create this condition. There are other factors, like radiation, or the Crab Nebula, which is a distant part of the same [Milky Way] galaxy. It gives us regular pulses of cosmic rays, which interfere with solar activity. So there are all kinds of factors which moderate and adjust these trends. But for 2 million years, this planet has been, and remains in a period of glaciation, which gets bigger and then gets smaller, and gets bigger. And generally, these periods are broken down, these ebbs and flows are broken down, in longer-term trends of about 100,000 years.

www.petitionproject.org

Dr. Edward Teller was the first of thousands of scientists to sign this petition on the fraud of global warming.

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

So we’re now coming to the phase where, the freeze is on, boys! Get your overcoats out: Global warming is not going to happen. It could happen for other reasons, but it’s not happening naturally.

So this is a fake! Global warming is a fake. Anybody who says they’re a scientist, and says they believe in global warming, is a fake! And is not to be listened to. There are tens of thousands of competent scientists on this planet, who have signed on to attest to the fact, that global warming is a fraud. And therefore, the attempt to organize this planet and its economy, on the basis of an assumption of global warming, is a fraud! And it’s deadly. I’ll get to some of the considerations on that later. But it’s important that this be understood.

The World Wildlife Nazis

Now, the entirety of this so-called global warming trend is a deliberate fraud, which has been concocted by the joint action of two principal founders of the World Wildlife Fund: The one, now deceased some years ago, is the former Nazi, Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands; and his buddy, is Britain’s Prince Philip. The policy of genocide, as expressed by Prince Philip, as in his intention to reduce the world’s population by no less than two-thirds! as fast as possible—that’s his global warming project—is the same doctrine, which was uttered earlier, and often, by the Satanic figure known as Bertrand Russell, who was the first, in September 1946, to propose the early launching of global nuclear warfare, for this same purpose.

Sander Lamme

Princes Philip (left) and Bernhard (right; now deceased), founders of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), may well be batty. Their anti-population, anti-science policy is explicitly genocidal. The WWF ad features a fundraising gimmick to get people to “adopt” vampire bats.

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

Some will protest that I’m accusing Princes Philip and Bernhard, like Bertrand Russell, of Hitler-like thinking: That is precisely what I intend to say. And there is absolutely no error, and no possibility of error, in my stating the fact of what I’m saying about that matter, and them, now! That danger, today, is typified by the cases of the burgeoning accumulation of associations such as MySpace and Facebook, whose particular relevance is that they represent, together with devotees of the killer computer games, a lost generation of young people, such as many children and grandchildren of the 68ers, who have fled from the real world, into strange, cultish withdrawals, known to scientists and other scholars from the old times of similar cults: I refer to similar cults, such as the ancient cult of Dionysius, and the modern Nietzschean versions of that cult, such as the Nazi party, the green leadership of the 1920s, the drug cults, the LSD cult, launched in the United States and Canada by the British trio—the Satanist Aleister Crowley, H.G. Wells, and Bertrand Russell—during the 1920s and the 1930s, are the proximate origin of the neo-Dionysian drug- and related social-withdrawal cults, proliferating among many of our young people in the Americas and Europe today.

The cases of the circle of kooks, exposed by Time magazine, are expressions of the Dionysian cults, which sprang up under the auspices of the notable 68ers, as spawned as the offspring of the European Congress for Cultural Freedom, during the course of the 1945-1989 interval.

As Time magazine has performed a much-needed service in exposing the organized efforts to brainwash our incumbent President [Obama], so most of the wicked social phenomena which afflict society have been manufactured by witting agencies, which hide their influence behind that cult of the stupefied, the cult of those who profess: “I don’t believe in conspiracy theories.”

We must remember that virtually all great achievements, in the history of mankind, have come about through the awakening of a large portion of an entire population, to recognizing the absurdity and danger, represented by the kind of Dionysiac and kindred cults of “true believers,” which include the social withdrawal cults such as Prince Philip’s and Bernhard’s World Wildlife Fund of today.

LaRouche’s Forecasts

Now, I proceed to the other six points: certain popular delusions about the nature of economy. It should be noted here, and on the record, that I’ve been forecasting economic developments, with success, since my first forecast, made in 1956, which was a short-term forecast, when I forecast that in about February-early March of 1957, there would be the heaviest, biggest recession in the post-war U.S. history. And it came on time, as I promised.

Then I made a longer forecast, which pertained to the late ’60s and the beginning of the ’70s, in which I forecast, at that time, unless there were certain changes made from the policies which were operating at the end of the 1960s, that by the middle of the 1960s, we would enter the beginning of a breakdown process in the economy, and we must expect, then, that by the end of the 1960s—if that condition continued—or by the beginning of the 1970s, we would be on the way to a general disintegration of the economy.

EIRNS

The Aug. 30-Sept. 3, 1971 issue of New Solidarity, then the weekly of the burgeoning LaRouche movement, analyzes President Nixon’s Aug. 15 decision to crash the Bretton Woods system. LaRouche had previously forecast an imminent process of disintegration in the economy, if policies were not changed.

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

Now, since that time, I’ve made a number of forecasts. None of these forecasts are based on statistical methods. Because I do not believe in statistics. Statistics do not determine how an economy functions. Because monetary processes do not determine how an economy functions. Monetary processes may reflect the decisions by governments and others, which cause these effects, but it is not statistical processes that determine these processes in economies. These trends in economies are determined by the will of powerful influences who shape policy.

Now, the long-term policy, here, is: It happened on the day, on the 13th of April, 1945. On the previous day, Franklin Roosevelt had died. On the 13th of April, Truman cancelled the polices of Franklin Roosevelt, and adopted the policies of a fascist, known as John Maynard Keynes. John Maynard Keynes’ theory, at that time, and later—and his followers’ later, to the present time—was based on a book written by John Maynard Keynes, in 1937. This book, which was published in German, with a preface in German, identified the purpose of this publication, that Keynes said, in the preface, that it was his intention that Germany under Hitler was an economy better suited to his methods than other states. And he was right! He was right.

Keynes, by the way, was quite a kook, in his own right, in many dimensions of kookery; I don’t mean in the oven, either.

Remember what had happened: We, in the United States, under Roosevelt, had, beginning the day that Roosevelt entered office—we were headed on the road to Hell, economic hell; we had been moving in that direction, as a tendency in policy-shaping, not in trends in economy as such, but in trends in policy-shaping, since the assassination of President William McKinley, which had brought Teddy Roosevelt, and later Woodrow Wilson, the Ku Klux Klan man, into the Presidency. The Ku Klux Klan man, Woodrow Wilson—his family were members of the Klan, and it was Wilson, who as President, relaunched the Ku Klux Klan in the United States, from the White House, personally! And the same kind of thing was going on in the 1920s under Coolidge, who kept his mouth shut, because he knew he was a criminal, and might confess; and Herbert Hoover, who was a competent engineer, but had bad politics, and he worked for people who had worse politics.

So, when Roosevelt came in, we were in a long-term process of destruction.

Maritime Culture and Astral Navigation

One more step, which you have to take into account: In the known history of mankind, the superior form of culture was never on land-based development, inland-based development. All successful leading currents in culture, in economic culture, have come from maritime culture: people who lived on the sea, or on the coasts as seafaring people. Because they were working, for one thing—they were more intelligent, because to navigate on oceans, you have to know something about the Solar System and the stars, particularly in long-term navigation.

And during periods of the recent 200,000 years of ice ages, most of the civilization of the Northern Hemisphere was done by people who were living in the Arctic during one part of the year, and going down to other places the other time; or in the Indian Ocean, where there was an important culture, at the time when the levels of the waters of the planet, were 400 feet below, approximately, what they are today. Because the water was in the ice on top of this process.

So, the development of a scientific culture—the very use of the word “universal” typifies this—reflects the necessity of using the stars for navigation, because we have a population, which is going around in a flotilla of craft from one part to the other, as the seasons change. They can not do this, they can not migrate, without the ability to navigate, and you navigate by the stars. And the long-term navigation depends upon looking at the star system, rather than just the planetary system. And so, the culture of mankind has always been based, up to a certain point, on maritime culture.

The other aspect is, that until the middle of the 19th Century, it was more efficient, and easier, to trade by water, than by land. Rivers, but especially seas and oceans, were the basis for culture. You had people who were trying to live inland, but under very poor conditions. And the dominant culture of the planet was, for a very long time, maritime cultures, seagoing peoples. And the people who lived inland, were always relatively backward, because it was more costly, they couldn’t move around with the facility and so forth, so that was the case.

Now, a change occurred, in the middle of the 19th Century. A change occurred, for two reasons: First of all, the system of empires, that emerged from the Mediterranean, in particular, about the time of the Peloponnesian War, from that time on, the maritime cultures were the dominant cultures of the Mediterranean. They were the dominant cultures, also, of the Indian Ocean. Remember, there was a time, when the Indian Ocean was 400 feet below the level it is today, in which the coast of India was much wider. And during the period of glaciation, the amount of water flowing in the great rivers was much greater. So you had a very important culture in the Subcontinent; and you had important cultures in the maritime areas where culture was occurring. So these were the dominant cultures.

And so, empires, as they developed, developed on the ocean, as maritime empires, not land-based empires—the leading empires were just exactly that.

FIGURE 2

The U.S. Railroad Grid in 1870, After Completion of the Transcontinental Railroad

Library of Congress

The building of transcontinental railroads, starting in the United States during the Lincoln Administration and spreading to Germany, France, and Russia, was a potentially mortal threat to the British Empire, historically based on maritime power.

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

So what happened in the 19th Century, with the development of the Transcontinental Railroad system of the United States [Figure 2], a development which took this territory, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and from the Canadian to the Mexican border, and developed in us, a land-mass nation-state, a sovereign nation-state which was more efficient, in its internal land-based transportation, than was ocean freight.

It’s still the case, today. If you want to ship something of importance long distances, you want a transcontinental, high-speed railroad system—not a car system, but a railroad system; which is more efficient, makes you more productive per capita, than any other way, in shipping for example. Aircraft is not an efficient way to carry freight long distance, except emergency, premium freight. Ocean travel is not the efficient way to get around this planet. The efficient way is modern railway systems, or magnetic levitation systems. That’s the best way to develop a continent.

So, what happened then, when the United States developed, in the aftermath of the Lincoln Administration, developed the Transcontinental Railway system—an intention which had already been devised as Secretary of State John Quincy Adams had devised it—this policy made the United States the greatest power on this planet, in terms of its character.

This, therefore, meant the victory of the United States over the British, who set up the invasion of Mexico, and who set up the Civil War in the United States. The defeat of the British on this point, with the development of the economy around the Transcontinental Railway system, was the greatest threat the British Empire ever faced.

FIGURE 3

FIGURE 4

The Berlin-Baghdad Railway, Built by Germany in the Early 20th Century

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

And thus, when Europe, after 1876, particularly, 1877, as in Germany, as in Russia, as in France, as in other countries, began to move immediately, toward the development of transcontinental railway systems, this was a revolution, which eliminated the power, the maritime power of the British Empire [Figures 3-4]. And all the struggles and wars we’ve had since that time, are prefaced by the determination of the British Empire to eliminate the United States as a power and to restore secure power, forever, to a British Empire, an empire of money, not of Britons; the British can’t think, but the money moves.

So that’s the problem we have. That’s the issue of the crisis.

British Imperialism Is the World Empire

Now, the other side of this, the complement of this, is that the development of mankind, the development of the power of the individual, the development of the nation, depends upon scientific development—fundamental scientific breakthroughs and their byproducts, which are then used to increase the power of man, per capita and per square kilometer, to increase the potential for population and so forth. Whereas, the desire to have an empire, an empire of money, an empire of usury, depends upon suppressing the scientific knowledge and practice of populations, and keeping them backward and dumb, and thus controlling them.

And the fight we have, the fight on this planet today, the fight against Prince Philip, that fascist; the fight against the dead fascist, Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, is the same thing: They try to make us stupid, they tell us we can’t have science, we mustn’t have high-density energy sources. We must not have this! We must go backward, we must go back to the caves. We must protect the bats! Aren’t the bats just as good as we are? It’s a sucker society.

So the point is, the fight for progress, the fight for development of science, the fight for capital-intensive investment in the productive power of mankind, is a fight to free mankind from this bestial state of imperialism! And British imperialism is the world empire! There is no other empire on this planet today! Any jerk can say he’s an empire; he can sit on a street corner and have a little tin can out there and say, “I’m an empire.” But he’s not an empire! The British Empire is the only empire on this planet, today.

And so, thus, what happened in 1865-66, and then into 1876, was a revolution, which affirmed the United States in its character as a sovereign nation-state, and held out to the people of the world to free themselves from empire! And to establish a system of cooperating, sovereign nation-states on this planet. And that’s the key issue here.

And this issue—it also comes intellectually, in the question of how we think about economy. If we understand, that it is scientific progress, fundamental scientific progress, which is the basis for our ability to meet the demands of mankind, and provide a future for mankind, then the great struggle on this planet, is not a struggle of wars, of military forces. It’s a struggle between those who wish to develop the mind and capabilities of the human individual and peoples, against those who want to keep the people down! And keep them on the level that the so-called environmentalists want.

Now, since you can not sustain a population of more than 5 billion people on this planet, without nuclear power and similar kinds of technological progress, therefore, those who want an empire, of one form or the other, want to reduce the population of the planet to less than 2 billion people.

And that’s what the environmentalist movement is all about: Is genocide! A program of genocide. And that’s what Prince Philip means. And that’s what that fascist, that ex-Nazi, Prince Bernhard meant.

So, the delusions we have about an economy, arise from the fact that someone thinks an economy is a matter of money, or business in terms of money, or selling your neighbor. Selling your neighbor himself, not what he has to offer.

So, money is not the determinant of wealth. And the statistical measures of money flows have nothing to do with actual forecasting of wealth. They may affect things, because the policy is that direction. But the thing which affects the planet, is the development of the mind of the individual. And the development of the mind of the individual which means a higher level of culture, a Classical culture! Classical art, Classical music, so forth. This is the measure of mankind. If you’re against Classical culture, then you’re for the destruction of the mind of the society: You want to produce a bunch of animals, who don’t know any better. And they grunt. They don’t have to learn how to parse; they don’t have know how to do counterpoint; they can just grunt. Or if they get tired of grunting, they can always scream.

So the issue of money is not the determinant.

It’s Not Statistics!

What has happened, as in the case of the United States, as it was demonstrated again with the case of Franklin Roosevelt’s reform, was, what you need is a fixed-exchange-rate system, among sovereign currencies of nations. Because value does not lie in money! Money is simply a vehicle to organize exchange: investment, and goods, and exchange. It has no intrinsic value. Statistical measures of money flow, do not really tell you anything about how an economy works.

I’ve always been right, since my first forecast in 1956, I’ve always been right. And every critical time, everyone’s who’s opposed me has been wrong: They use statistical methods, which are intrinsically incompetent. They measure in terms of money statistics. It’s an incompetent measurement. The important thing is what do you do, to invest in the physical productive powers of labor. And also to invest in the development of the mind and social relations of people, which are essential for that increase in productivity. The physical productive powers of labor, made possible by inventions. No animal can make an invention; no animal ever discovered a principle.

So therefore, only man and only man’s creativity, the creativity which is potential in man as in no other species, is capable of creating a modern human economy. No money system defines a human economy, except as rot in the economy. We need money, in a sense. Money as a deal of trade. But the productivity is the increase of the productive powers of labor, per capita and per square kilometer of this planet. And that comes from two things: the development of the physical power to produce, which is a reflection of physical science, including biological science. And the other thing, is the development of the ability to communicate ideas of that type, which has to do with the culture, a literate culture of a people, and the development of that literacy, and the development of the use of that culture.

So, that’s what economy is.

Also, there are other things that I’ll get to here, but that’s the point. The reason people fake it, they say, “Well, what do statistics tell us?” You’re listening to statistics? Hmm? Who’s your psychiatrist?

It’s not statistics.

The Auto Industry, for Example

For example, just to make this point clear, because it is a contentious point: My forecast in 1956, of course, was based on my work in Riemannian physics, as applied to economy. And what I understood, because I was a practical consultant, also, dealing with whole sections of industry, especially the automobile industry and related industries, among others. And therefore, I knew, because Wall Street, and the automobile industries, were producing automobiles which had an approximate useful two-year life. That is, after about two years, the cost of repairs would exceed the cost of buying a new automobile. So what happened was, an effort to have a credit-based expansion of the automobile industry, and some other industries, hardwood industries; they began issuing credit, as for automobile sales, on a 36-month basis, when the typical automobile was stabilized only at 24 months: That is, the physical value of the automobile would begin to deteriorate after 24 months, because Detroit was really producing some awful crap, in quality!

So therefore, they had a 36-month credit allowance. Now, 36 monthly payments on a new automobile was the basis for that section of the economy. But the automobile was only good in net value, for about 24 months. But 36 months wasn’t enough, so they came up with another scheme, called the balloon note, in which, what you would have, is 36 months, payments; for the first 35 months, the payments were equal, monthly. The 36th month might be many times larger. And this was reached in many areas of credit utterance, during the 1950s.

So, at that point, I knew that when March arrived—because in the United States economy, we function generally on a 13-month cycle, it’s 12 months from the end of the first quarter to the first quarter of the next year. I knew that when the next annual term was going to come, in about March of 1957, that this thing was going to blow, because I had a knowledge of all these industries which were making this particular kind of mistake, under the encouragement of the government policy. So it blew! We had the biggest recession in the post-war period.

People were coming to me and saying, “What’s your statistics?” I said, “I don’t need your statistics: I know, that out there, you’ve got automobiles which are on 36-month maturity, with balloon notes in the 36th month, and they’re going to hit; and when they hit, this economy’s going to go down, in a deep recession. Because it was not just automobiles, but a whole lot of other things—housing and everything else, were in the same racket. So, we knew, or were able to forecast, because we knew the conditions of physical production, the relationship between infrastructure and physical production, for those things, the physical realities are the things that give you a tip-off as to what direction current policy is moving things into.

The crisis is caused by policy.

For example: We had a 1987 recession, which was as big as the 1929 Depression. October—I forecast that one, too. It came in October, just as I forecast. Why? Because of the quarterly cycle, and the physical conditions of that time. So, what happened then, is you had Greenspan come in, and he came up with this crazy, self-inflating system of credit. And so, since Greenspan entered the position to replace Volcker, in the Federal Reserve System, the United States went insane: We operated under an insane credit system.

The reason we are bankrupt now, is two reasons: First of all, we’re bankrupt because of Greenspan; a self-inflating debt. A self-inflating debt! Plus, the fact that, what had happened, when we should have put the thing into bankruptcy, and gotten rid of the worthless debt, what we’ve done, is we went to bail out that debt, through the firm called Goldman Sucks, and similar kinds of institutions. So, instead of putting the thing into bankruptcy to get rid of the crap, we decided to save the crap and kill the baby! You know, save the diaper—kill the baby. And that’s what they did.

So, in these cases, it is not money, it is not statistics, it is not monetary theory, that determines the way an economy works: It is physical! But physical includes the fact of the human brain, which is not like any animal brain, no animal can make an invention—only human beings can. And it’s the kind of way in which we organize our social system, by adopting social conventions, as to how we behave, and the physical effect of these conventions. Therefore, if we have defective conventions, which are not functioning properly, we’re going to have problems! And these problems are foreseeable—in physical terms! Not in money terms, in physical terms. However, of course, if you’re printing money, you know, without limit, then you’re going to have hyperinflation. But that’s a not a monetary thing, that’s an idiocy problem.

Delusions About Profit

The other thing, is the question of delusions about profit, the third point. Now, mankind is the only creature on this planet, which is not an animal—though some of our people try. Human beings have creativity: That’s the ability to discover a true universal principle, as typified by Johannes Kepler’s discovery of universal gravitation, all by himself. And that’s an example of a discovery of a universal physical principle, as this was later explained in more detail by Albert Einstein, and so forth. So there are these principles. And thus, man’s ability to discover universal physical principles, and similar kinds of principles that affect art and so forth, are the means by which mankind is able to increase our productive power.

Now, in the case of an animal species, or a group of animal species, like a habitat, this group of animals, has a limit on its population, which is determined by the condition of the habitat. And the animals can not go above that without a favorable change in the habitat.

Human beings are different. We create the habitat. We create a new kind of habitat. And the typification of that is our use of the discovery of universal physical principles. We invent the ability of the human population, which has otherwise the potential of the gorillas or the chimpanzees, for earthly population. Mankind is not a chimpanzee, though some people seem to try to qualify for that. And therefore, mankind is capable of increasing the human population above the chimpanzee level! That means, you’ve got an ecological problem: Because, if you want to monkey around, behaving like a chimpanzee, you’re going to be in trouble. You’re not going to have much of a family life!

So therefore, human society is able to develop a large population—we have now 6.7 billion people on this planet! There’s no species in existence that’s able to do that kind of thing! It’s because of the human brain! Not the brain as such, but the human mind: the power to invent, the power to invent social processes as well as physical processes. So therefore, that is man.

Therefore, what does this mean?

Take the case of the Biosphere: A Biosphere normally has a certain limitation on its population, and it’s not just on the particular species, it’s on a group of species which interact in a habitat. Mankind has long outrun the kind of potential that an animal species would have had, say baboons, or whatever. So therefore, also, we are using up some of the resources available to us near the surface of the Earth. So, how do we live, if we’re doing that? How do we violate what the biologist would say is a law of nature?

We actually increase the power of mankind to live, by what most people would call “overpopulation.” We increase man’s power to exist! And [increase] our standard of living, by doing that.

Library of Congress

Using statistics to try to understand an economy is intrinsically incompetent! The important thing is, what do you invest in the physical productive powers of labor, made possible by inventions, by the development of the mind. Shown: The case of agriculture. In the photo below, a GPS antenna and yield monitor allow the farmer to produce computerized color-coded yield maps for each field, optimizing his future production.

USDA/Bruce Fritz

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

So therefore, what do we mean by “profit”? We don’t mean money profit. We mean something that may be reflected, apparently, in accounting figures, as monetary profit, but it’s not monetary profit. What we do, is we increase the productive powers of labor, per capita and per square kilometer; that’s the margin of profit. This comes largely from innovation, from the application of discoveries, or their application in an improved way. Mankind is using up—most of the resources we use are what? Most of the resources we use to live, come from the Biosphere.

For example, we dig minerals out of the soil in the upper stratum of the Earth. How’d those minerals get there? Well, animals died! Little animals died; and when they died, their skeletons, or their equivalent of skeletons, are deposited in certain areas. That’s how you find things. All these kinds of things are left as deposits by dead little animals. We dig down, and we find an ore, a lodestone. We find an ore; and we dig it up. But we’re using it up! Ah! What do we do? Well, then, we have to build up our productive power by new discoveries, which means, we increase the capital investment, in life. We invest more, physically in maintaining a human being, to compensate for the fact that we’re draining down some of the so-called raw-materials sources, which have been left behind, as a heritage for us, by dead animals. Their little dead bodies. You find most of your minerals that way.

So therefore, profit really means, that mankind, through the mental powers of mankind, in developing not only physical-scientific discoveries, but in terms of increasing capital-intensive investment in mankind, we increase mankind’s ability to outrun what would have appeared earlier, as the limits on population. And this is real profit. Profit comes from the mind of man, who is able to make inventions and realize them to increase the productive potential of mankind to live, even while apparently otherwise depleting the Biosphere environment.

The planet is composed, chemically, of three elements. The total element of the planet Earth is about the same as it was a long time ago. At first, it was mostly abiotic, non-living processes, was the composition of the planet. Living processes took over, and began to develop the Biosphere. So the Biosphere began to grow, which meant, even though the planet was a fixed total volume, the Biosphere began marginally increasing, increasing, relatively at the expense of the old material, the abiotic.

Mankind comes along; mankind depletes the Biosphere, which we grew up, by life, eating up some of the pre-Biosphere. Man now does the same thing. So therefore, the power of human creativity is increasing. The effect of human creativity is increasing: Mankind is demonstrating that mankind is not a part of the Biosphere: Man is something superior to the Biosphere: man’s creative powers.

And that’s what an economy really is. Economy is based on the development of the creative powers of mankind, those creative powers which distinguish the human being from any animal. And thus, it’s the mind of man, and the culture of man, and the culture of mankind, the culture of society, that’s important.

This is the delusion of profit.

Leonardo da Vinci’s sketches of hydraulic machines. Profit comes from the mind of man, who is able to make inventions and realize them to increase the productive potential of mankind.

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

Energy Is Hot Stuff!

Now, energy: Energy is measured largely in temperature, not calories. Energy is hot stuff!

A calorie is valuable in terms of the temperature it embodies. Therefore, the human race could not live on this planet on the basis of a green policy. A green policy for the planet, a so-called environmentalist policy for the planet, would mean the destruction of most of the human species. It’s mass murder. And Bertrand Russell understood that, and probably Prince Philip does too. So that’s the problem.

The value of a calorie, in energy terms, is its relative temperature: The higher the temperature, the greater the value of a calorie. The lower the temperature, the more worthless the calorie. And if your energy policy is counting units of energy, in terms of so-called “free energy,” you’re going to commit genocide against the human race—and there’s no scientific excuse for that genocide.

Now, creativity: This is the most important question, in economics. The human being, the human mind is capable of discovering laws of the universe which are not mathematical laws as such. They may have a mathematical reflection, as a shadow; that is the footprint of discovery. But it is not the content of discovery. The content of discovery is the act of discovery, not the content of it, not its energy footprint. And therefore, what you want is a culture which has a higher degree of creativity in the culture; it means you don’t want the kind of garbage we have as music and entertainment today! You want to go back to some time when we had a better culture, before the end of World War II, before the developments of the fake musical culture, the fake literary culture, all these kinds of things. You want to go back to scientific creativity: You don’t want Facebook; you don’t want MySpace; you don’t want these other symbols of degeneracy! Of people who want to live, entertaining themselves, by doing nothing! But just talking about it. You talk about nothing, you call it something.

Then, world trade: Again, culture. The characteristic of human culture is located, associated with language. And why? Because language is a vehicle we use for transmitting creative work among people. But creativity is not language. Creativity is the use of language, and various senses of language, to be able to formulate problems and to create creative solutions for those problems. That’s creativity. And the creativity of a population is located in its culture.

EIRNS/Tarrajna Dorsey

The LaRouche Youth Movement’s cadre development program concentrates on reliving the unique, original discoveries of the past, so as to make such discoveries in the future. Here, the LYM chorus sings Bach’s motet “Jesu, meine Freude” at a Schiller Institute in Germany; LYM leader Cody Jones leads a seminar in Northern Virginia on the science of dynamics, April 2009.

EIRNS/Jams Rea

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

The Immortality of Mankind

Now, this again, gets to a theological question, but it’s a crucial one you can’t avoid in science. It comes into the question of the immortality of mankind. When people die, unlike animals, they don’t really die. Think about it in terms of creative abilities, creative powers of individuals: Now, someone has made—like Einstein or Kepler, or someone—has made a discovery. How does that thing work? Well, he’s made a discovery, and he knows how to apply it, presumably. He communicates it to others. Well, how does he communicate it? He communicates it by inducing them to go through the experience of making a discovery. How are discoveries promulgated in society? They’re done by a process in which a person who dies does not really die as an effective part of that culture, if they’re creative. Because, to transmit a creative idea, you have to re-experience it. And what happens in society, the principles we develop, among skilled people, who are skilled in culture, skilled in science, and so forth, is that what they discover is replicated in a continuing process by those who come after them. That’s how it occurs. That’s what a culture is: It involves language, it involves all the instruments by which we communicate culture, embody it.

So mankind is essentially the only known, immortal living creature on this planet. And immortality is expressed in the fact, that the ideas which are creative, actually creative, human activities, can only be promulgated by their experiencing them, in people who come after those who started the process of that particular discovery. That’s the way science works! It’s the way art works!

Take the case of all great Classical music, which generally has its origin in the discoveries of Johann Sebastian Bach: There is no part of Classical musical composition, which does not involve reliving the unique, original discoveries, in music, and in counterpoint, by Johann Sebastian Bach. You can not possibly understand music, you can not possibly replicate it—Beethoven could not have been Beethoven, if he didn’t absorb Bach! Bach is living in Beethoven! In his work! Bach is living in Mozart, in his work! Bach is living in Brahms, in his work! And anybody, who doesn’t like Bach, ain’t a musician!

The same thing is true in literature: the same thing you see in , on poetry; the same principle is true. Human beings do not die in the same way. The flesh dies, the body dies. But the process of creativity set into motion within human beings, is perpetuated by other human beings, who continue the same process, the same thoughts, the same experience!

Why is it important to us, to think of our ancestors? Why is it important for us to think about ancient cultures? Why do we try to understand man today, by going back tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of years, to the first samples of human existence on this planet? Because we have a hunger to absorb that which makes human beings human, and not animals. This is creativity. Creativity is something experienced.

So therefore, to have a society, not of dumb bunnies, you have to devote yourself to engaging our children, and others, in reliving the experience of the discoveries, upon which mankind’s progress has been based. And the individual is, in that sense, immortal.

This immortality is expressed in a dynamical way, within the culture.

Therefore, if you want to have an economy, you’ve got to think about the language-culture, and associated features of culture of a people. And that is the basis for a nation-state. Does that mean we have a competition with or a hatred of other nation-states? Of course not! What do we do in practice? We’re always trying to engage and understand the creative process in people of a different language and different culture. We’re trying to absorb and transmit what they’ve contributed to humanity: To us, it’s precious. We seek to protect it. We create museums. We do all kinds of things to keep knowledge of creativity of the past alive, and to share it among different people of different cultures. And that’s true of an economy. And that’s true of world trade: That’s the issue of world trade.

Library of Congress

“We don’t want globalization!” Trade is properly an expression of the culture of a sovereign nation, of its creative processes, and the sharing of discoveries and progress among people of different nations. Shown here, the Port of New York, an opening to the world, in the 19th Century—looking south from the Battery. Currier & Ives, 1892.

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

National Sovereignty:

The Cultural Framework

Now, the question of national sovereignty. Since human beings are creative, then, it’s the interaction of human beings over successive generations, within a cultural framework, which is the collective thinking of that people. This is the true free will of a people, is its culture, the creative aspect of its culture, usually, associated with its language-culture, or associated with groups of language-cultures.

So therefore, we have this relationship, as typified by the principle of 1648, of the Peace of Westphalia: peace among cultures. Love between cultures. But respect for the sovereignty of the culture, because the sovereignty of the culture is the location in which the identity of creativity is located; its expression is located in a language-culture. Therefore, respect for the language-culture, and the tendency to assist the other culture, to succeed, is the proper relation. So therefore, the society we want, is the society of nation-states.

We don’t want globalization! Globalization is for monkeys, not for people! Monkeys can go around the world in different places; chimpanzees can do that, and as long as the habitat’s friendly, one monkey’s pretty much like another monkey. And I don’t believe that human beings should monkey around.

So, I’ve said what I think sets the tone for discussion which we’re now going to have. Have fun.

LAROUCHE PAC CLASS

Music and Creativity: The Lawfulness

and Beautiful Ordering of the Universe

by Liliana Gorini and John Sigerson

LPAC-TV

Liliana Gorini

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

The following is an edited transcript of a class given by Liliana Gorini and John Sigerson, the fourth in a series of classes on the works and ideas of Lyndon LaRouche, under the title, “Earth’s Last Fifty Years and Earth’s Next Fifty Years,” presented before a live audience in New York City on May 18, 2019. Gorini is the chairwoman of MoviSol, the LaRouche movement in Italy. Sigerson is the music director of the Schiller Institute and the co-author of its Manual on the Rudiments of Tuning and Registration: Introduction and Human Singing Voice.

Part 1

Gorini—LaRouche and Italy,

the Renaissance Idea

Gorini: Helga Zepp-LaRouche recently spoke about the importance of LaRouche’s writings in creating a global Renaissance. She compared the importance of LaRouche’s writings to those of Plato at the Council of Florence, which made the Italian Renaissance possible:

I have compared the access to LaRouche’s ideas to the impact that the introduction of Plato had in the context of the 1439 Council of Florence, triggering the explosion of the Italian Renaissance. Because if Nicholas of Cusa would have not brought the Greek Orthodox Church scholars Bessarion and Plethon, who were scholars of Plato and who brought the entire works of Plato, which had been lost to Europe for 1700 years, the Renaissance would not have been possible. Fortunately, you had the Medicis who financed a crash program to translate the works, and it was the excitement for Plato which made the Italian Renaissance what it became.

Lyndon LaRouche was politically very well known, and influential in Italy, but, perhaps surprising to some, he made a special intervention on the question of culture and the Verdi tuning. He had always been very supportive of Classical culture. In the preface to the Music Manual, which was published in Italian at the time of our Schiller Institute conference on Verdi tuning, “The Classical Idea: Natural and Artistic Beauty” at the Casa Verdi in Milan, Italy on April 9, 1988, LaRouche wrote:

The relationship between Platonic notions of the Good and Beautiful, and the application of Augustinian principles of harmonic beauty by the 12th to 13th century cathedral building of Chartres in France, is an outstanding example of the pre-Renaissance notion of the application of the Classical idea. For Classical essence, beauty was not a matter of differing tastes, but subject to scientific verification.

LaRouche: Voices Will Be Destroyed

In 1986, I had the opportunity and honor of participating in a performance in Virginia of Mozart’s Coronation Mass, conducted by John Sigerson, who will speak after me. During the rehearsal, Mr. LaRouche arrived to hear us. He said then,

I don’t care what you do; put scotch tape on the bassoons, do whatever you want, but go back to the scientific pitch of C=256 or the music will be destroyed and the voices will be destroyed.

That was quite a shocking statement. And many people said, “Maybe he is exaggerating.” Many people thought LaRouche exaggerated in his political and economic forecasts, and later learned they were wrong. In music, we all discovered that he was not exaggerating there either; he was truly a visionary.

I returned to Milan to seek out evidence of what LaRouche was saying, and went to the Milan Conservatory where my father was a teacher. He found the 1884 letter of Giuseppe Verdi in the library of the Milan Conservatory, which presented exactly the same idea of a scientific tuning as did Mr. LaRouche! In 1884 Verdi had written: “There are scientific reasons why we need to go back to” what he called “A=432 Hertz,”—which in Archimedean mathematics equals C=256 cycles per second.

Verdi wrote that we cannot have an A in Paris—which at that time had a lower tuning—that is a B-flat in Rome. In Rome the pitch, at that time, went as high as A=448. Verdi said that as music is a universal language, he called on all musicians to go back to A=432.

EIRNS

Left to right: unknown, Piero Cappuccilli, Carlo Bergonzi, Arturo Sacchetti, Lyndon LaRouche, and Liliana Gorini at a conference in November, 1997 at the Salone Barezzi di Busseto, presenting the book Canto e Diapason, the Italian-language edition of the Schiller Institute’s Manual on the Rudiments of Tuning and Registration.

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

Return to the Verdi Tuning

We happily told Mr. LaRouche about this letter of Verdi—and decided to go ahead with a campaign for the Verdi tuning. In 1988, we had the first Schiller Institute conference on scientific tuning in Milan at the Casa Verdi, which is the house built by Verdi for poor musicians. His grave is there now. With us to speak about the need to go back to the Verdi tuning were Piero Cappuccilli, a very famous Verdi baritone, and Renata Tebaldi, the world-famous soprano.

In conjunction with the 1988 conference, we circulated a petition for Verdi tuning that was signed by 2,000 of the most famous opera singers in the world—Montserrat Caballé, Placido Domingo, Luciano Pavarotti, you name them. All of these singers supported this idea, and this campaign was widely covered in the leading newspapers all over the world—from Le Monde in France, Corriere della Sera in Italy, to the New York Times in the United States. LaRouche’s initiative, the Schiller Institute campaign for lower tuning, became known everywhere, because of Verdi’s letter and because all of these famous singers had endorsed it.

1988 Conference at Casa Verdi

The video report of our 1988 conference began with Mr. LaRouche saying,

I knew what you had to have, because the music was based on the human singing voice. Most of the leading singers of that time, who were leading singers at the time, all joined our defense of this tuning against the higher tuning, which is actually very destructive.

In the video you see Renata Tebaldi entering the room, and the audience was riveted—she was very famous. Tebaldi told the audience,

I will fight for this issue, because it is not right for young singers [to be subject to the high tuning; they] cannot go forward with [such a] high tuning. After years of school and teaching, they are suddenly thrown onto opera theaters, such as La Scala in Milan, or the opera in Vienna, in which they find a very high tuning, and they are lost.

Renata Tebaldi (right) with a friend in New York in 1957.

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

Piero Cappuccilli’s entrance had the same effect. He reported, “I have to say that at the time of Verdi, the pitch was at 432 Hz, and he wrote his operas for that pitch. Of course Verdi was a very intelligent person; he knew the voices very well, and he wrote for the voices,” Cappuccilli then sang “Oh, de verd’anni miei” from the Verdi opera Ernani at A=432 to demonstrate the beauty and the color of the lower, proper tuning, remarking, “It’s an entirely different story!”

We had conferences demonstrating the musical effect of the two tunings across Europe and the United States. These conferences brought together the idea of art and music, art and science, as a unity. I believe this is one of the reasons Lyndon LaRouche has been so popular and to this day, is very popular, as that oneness of art and science was a core element of the Renaissance.

self-portrait

Leonardo da Vinci

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

It was not only LaRouche who was attacked and went to prison. Leonardo da Vinci, whose 500th [death] anniversary we are celebrating this year, is still being attacked. In April there was an article in The Economist saying that Leonardo was no genius at all; which reminds me of a Financial Times article against LaRouche. He was in jail; Leonardo da Vinci was in jail when he wrote his treatise, De Vocie, on the human singing voice, which made exactly the comparison which LaRouche has been making between the singing voice and science. Leonardo compares the way waves behave in water and air, with the way they work in the larynx of human beings. In order to do that, he worked with corpses, and for this reason, he went to jail.

Not only Leonardo da Vinci; Dante Alighieri was also exiled—one of the pre-Renaissance geniuses who made the Italian language possible—he was exiled. Francesco Petrarca, who was involved in diplomatic work to get the Pope to move from Avignon to Rome, was also heavily attacked and probably poisoned and killed. Many of these geniuses of the Renaissance were also politicians; so this is also a comparison to Mr. LaRouche which you can make. Verdi himself was a member of the Senate in Italy, and he was fighting against the Hapsburgs in Italy. Some of his operas also were politically very clear.

Giovanni Boldini, 1886

Giuseppe Verdi

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

This is the reason why LaRouche is considered a man of the Renaissance in Italy, and it is important to know that Italy looks to LaRouche’s ideas and LaRouche’s exoneration as the key to change also in American policy.

LaRouche: The Quality of Mind

The change of mindset is key here. Let us conclude with an excerpt from Mr. LaRouche, answering a question, about music versus mathematics, posed to him during a webcast. He answers in a very moving way, quoting Bach, Beethoven, Shelley. He says, “In this culture, we are deprived of access to this quality of the mind, which is the quality of the mind indicated by the music of Bach, Beethoven. To understand economy, you have to understand this quality of the mind.”

Elias Gottlob Haussmann, 1748

Johann Sebastian Bach

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

Lyndon LaRouche: Bach’s work was a process of development in the history of music, as such, the history of composition. But what you do, is you take Bach, in his Well-Tempered Clavier, which is a key reference point, but not the only one, and then you look at the history of music leading into Bach, Bach’s work, and then you take the music leading out of it. What comes out of Bach’s work.

Then you also have to have a conception of language. Now, most people in the United States today, do not know how to speak. They know how to utter, but not to speak. They utter words, in an algebraic kind of way, or a non-algebraic kind of way, like “Something happened. Unfortunate.”

So that they don’t live their lives in terms of understanding what the mind of the Bach tradition in Classical composition represents. They don’t know the experience of the mind. See, it doesn’t lie in the mechanics, it doesn’t lie in the particulars. Bach is not that way. You cannot get a mathematical theory of Bach. People have tried to do that. It’s insane, it does not work!

You are looking more at the inner aspect of the mind: Classical artistic composition, corresponds to an inner character of the mind that most people don’t touch. What happens is, that among competent musicians, and especially great ones, even if they don’t understand what they are doing on the deepest level, they recognize that something is valid, as opposed to invalid. And therefore, they know the subject.

Most people in music—like people who can put up with rock, or the popular music of today—obviously know nothing about music. They know how to make noises; you could probably train chimpanzees to do a better job.

But to understand what underlies music, you are touching on the deeper part of the human mind, not the sense certainty-organized part. That’s why it’s so difficult to have a formal, algebraic, or mathematical type, or something like that, a formal demonstration—it’s the communication of an idea. And, this is an idea that can properly only be recognized, in those characteristics of the human mind, which are not corresponding to sense-certainties. There’s no sense-certainty explanation which will give you a real insight into music, Classical music, in the Bach tradition. It’s something you acquire by developing your mind, so that in this matter, you have a special kind of sensitivity.

I’ve seen this in great musicians, who I happen to know, for example, my friend Norbert Brainin, who died some years ago; of my age, he was actually younger than I am. And other great musicians. And I can recognize, in great musicians, and some of the recording work of great musicians, you can recognize—it’s like an image in the mind: You can see the way their mind is working. And there is no way to explain it in terms of number theory or any other such thing. You have to recognize it. And other people will recognize it.

Great Music Moves the Mind

It’s a thing that Shelley refers to: that the mind is moved, but does not know why. And of course, when the mind is moved, it may be moved in a misleading direction; it may not be true to truth. But when you become familiar with great music, great composition, for example, then, you develop, from knowing the great music from all kinds of experience, you really recognize an old friend. And you’re at home with an old friend. It’s like knowing a great performer in music, and they have certain ways of performing, and you get to know that, in various characters in music, who have a very special way of acting, and you understand their music from that special way which they do things.

W.J. Mäler, 1804

Ludwig van Beethoven

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

And then they go through changes, and yet, they don’t go through changes: Like a work of Bach, or Beethoven in his “middle years” so-called, as opposed to his final composition. There is a change there, but you can still recognize “Beethoven” as a personality in his music. Even though he has made a great change, a leap in insight, as in the Opus 132 [String Quartet No. 15 in A minor], for example: There is a great leap in insight; but you can still recognize him, there; you can go back and recognize the Razumovsky Quartets [Opus 59] of Beethoven, in the same personality, but an older, more mature one, more brilliant, more profound, in the Opus 132.

That’s the way it works. We are deprived of, in this culture, access and emphasis on this quality of the mind, which is what I am dealing with in these papers on economics: To understand economy and how it works, you really have to understand this principle of the mind. So I am dealing with it in the thing that went to press now, and I will be dealing with it in a series of, probably, four others, which will complete in this series on economics that I intend to get done, fairly rapidly.

Part 2

Sigerson—LaRouche, The Classical Window of the Mind

LPAC-TV

John Sigerson

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

Sigerson: Let me begin with a reflection on one crucial idea that Mr. LaRouche addressed in the discussion with which Liliana concluded her presentation—it’s very helpful that he spoke there about sense perception, because that’s exactly the problem. He is focussing on the very human need to identify what is real in the universe. Lyndon LaRouche struggled with this question even as a teenager. When he came upon the writings of Gottfried Leibniz, one of the greatest philosophers of the 17th and 18th centuries, he talked about this from the standpoint of what is substance. What is the substance of the universe? Is matter the substance of the universe? Or is there something that creates matter? Well, now in the age of Albert Einstein, who was actually a Leibnizian scientist, we now know that matter is created. Matter isn’t just self-evident. So, what is behind matter? What LaRouche discovered, and emphasized, is that it’s creativity.

But it’s not just general creativity and sort of making things. It’s creativity that is characterized by leaps in one’s grasp and mastery of the universe itself; and the lawfulness and the beautiful ordering of the universe, which is based on growth and on self-development. This is provable and demonstrable scientifically and also culturally. That was his focus; that has been his focus all along.

My presentation here is in three sections, and for the most part it will be Lyndon LaRouche giving this class. I’m going to be your guide.

First: an insight into Mr. LaRouche by looking at a presentation by him from a much earlier time, from the 1970s. Second: a look at Wilhelm Furtwängler, one of the greatest minds of the 20th century—along with Lyndon LaRouche—who was a great conductor and also a composer.

And, Third: Mr. LaRouche talking about a very particular song that was a series of songs composed by Johannes Brahms at the very end of his life in 1896, which was kind of his last will and testament. It’s called Vier ernste Gesänge, the “Four Serious Songs.” He composed it upon the death of his very close and dear friend, Clara Schumann, the wife of Robert Schumann, who had died much earlier. These particular pieces played a very important role in the development of Mr. LaRouche’s thought over a long period of time.

We will conclude by asking our live audience to listen to one musical examples of what Mr. LaRouche is getting at from the standpoint of human of creativity. Because of copyright protections that prohibit us from playing large sections of Wilhelm Furtwängler’s performances, instead we will play a musical selection from the great Austrian alto, Gertrude Pitzinger, who worked very closely with Furtwängler. Pitzinger was a personal friend of Lyndon and Helga LaRouche, later on in her life.

On the Subject of the Principle of Music

Let us begin with a passage from LaRouche’s June 15, 2012 EIR article, “A Lesson from Wilhelm Furtwängler: The World’s Breakdown-Crisis Is Now.” In that article LaRouche wrote:

The foregoing, stated conclusion begs the inference of a certain specific kind of universality, that of a truly universal, and knowledgeable principle of creativity. The empirical evidence to this effect, for music, is provided to us as by the work of Wilhelm Furtwängler, and by that work’s relevance to the preceding genius of Johann Sebastian Bach’s C=256.

This is the “Verdi tuning”; it was also the Bach tuning, it was also the Mozart tuning, it was Beethoven’s tuning, and it is the way you can create the optimal harmonic ordering of the human body, to work with these universal principles.

LaRouche wrote:

This has had universalizing implications for the defining of the principled characteristics of the human mind. Indeed, the rises and declines of the Classical musical principles so defined, correspond, in experience, to the ebb and flow of the moral quality of the intellectual competence of the relevant cultural current among sections of human society.

And we might also say “incompetence,” which is quite characteristic today. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, when many, many students thought they wanted to be revolutionaries—they however had no idea what that meant. Lyndon LaRouche spoke at many universities, especially in the New York area, and would tell students, “OK, you want to be revolutionary? OK, let me tell you what creativity is, because that’s what being a revolutionary is.”

EIRNS

Lyndon LaRouche organizing students in New York City in 1973.

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

It’s not just going around marching or something, like these Green fascists are doing today. But it means actually grasping a principle, the scientific principle of creativity. In 1973, LaRouche addressed a group of students at Swarthmore College—this was the “younger” LaRouche, 51 years old at that point, talking to these “wanting-to-be-revolutionary” students.

Beyond the Flash of Insight

LaRouche: So then, the question of leisure is fundamental, but in the sense of productive leisure. It is precisely to the extent, that the individual gets beyond the flash of insight to make creative thinking a deliberative thing, that he becomes the type and identity, that is, social identity, for creative processing. The best example I can give of this, would be the case of Heine, Beethoven, or Shelley, which are highly accessible forms, and they’re reliable forms to deal with—Beethoven in his double fugal works; Heine in general, in his poetry; Shelley in a lot of his poetry.

Percy B. Shelley

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

But, here’s what happens: In a revolutionary period, there is a change—I see this in strikes and upsurges—there’s a change in the nature of the relationship among people who are involved in the center of an upsurge. The persona relationship almost dissolves. And there’ve been a lot of silly things said by observers of these things, which says, you know, the self dissolves. It’s a lot of nonsense. And I can easily demonstrate that, but that’s another question. In these periods, precisely as Shelley described it—he’s absolutely correct—in the population, there’s an increase in intelligence, a qualitative increase in intelligence, that is, the capacity to assimilate important new ideas.

Now, what happens to a poet or a musician, who is himself creative—just in the ordinary sense; he’s very creative, but he’s not a great artist—suddenly, he finds himself being received by an audience, which is suddenly capable of sensing the most profound kinds of creative thinking. Now, his social relationship to his audience, his self-defined activity, his self-defined social relationship, becomes not the theme, not the subject, not the poem, but the form, the subject, the theme, the skill, the technology, all becomes a way of mediating his relationship to his audience, in terms of his creative activity to them, there. I say to you, that the subject of all creative art, of all great art, has absolutely nothing to do directly, with what they tell you about the subject, in most poetry courses or music courses. Because most of these people are Philistines, and they’re incapable—I don’t care how much music they studied, how much poetry they studied—they’re incapable, of recognizing a species they don’t know exists, creativity.

The subject of all great art is creativity. And what the artist is doing is trying to celebrate creativity to his audience, which he hopes is sensible of it; the intelligence of the audience, how important creativity is. His creativity has become his identity. This is true of anyone who does creative work, whether it’s in art, or in science, is, the act of creative mentation becomes the subject, becomes the identity. Perfection: What’s perfection? Perfection is creativity. What’s creativity? It’s the sense of yourself, of your activity, which every great artist not only has, but if you want to understand anything that is done, you have to locate creativity as the subject of his painting, his sculpture, his music, his poetry: That’s the subject of the poetry. Someone says the subject is this, or the subject is that, say, “You don’t know anything about poetry, you don’t know anything about music. Because if you did, you’d never say such a silly thing.”

The Subject of All Great Art

The subject of all great art is creativity, and nothing but creativity. And it’s creativity in a certain setting, using a mediating object as a way of getting at the communication of some aspect of creativity. It’s very easy to understand.

So therefore, what we’re dealing with, in leisure, as it applies to the Labor Committee—and I know exactly what this means in politics, because I’ve gone through it for 30 years—is that, to work something out, requires a relationship between yourself and the ongoing process of work. What you have to do to become creative, to bring creative powers under control, is not simply going around having flashes of creativity—that’s a lot of crap, that’s like having diarrhea. What you do, is, you struggle with something. Because creative thought is not necessarily correct because you happen to use creative faculties. Nor do you always know what creative thought is, at the beginning. You sometimes get flashes of insight, which may be stomach pains or something else. It’s not creative.

EIRNS/Doug Mayhew

Lyndon LaRouche conducts a class for youth in 2002.

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

But what do you discover, to become self-conscious of creative powers? It’s by doing something creative. You actually struggle with ideas, to understand them, to break through. When you’re working at it, you look at it, you criticize it, you try to get insight into what you’re doing. You try to reflect upon the activity in which you’re engaged in doing that; thus, through the object of your own creativity activity, in your analysis of that object, you are reflecting, if you’re looking for it, on your creative activity. And it’s this self-consciousness of your creative activity, which is your encounter, and is your first ability to make deliberate, creative mentation. And it’s as you’re able to make creative mentation deliberate, that you’re able to develop a human sense of self-identity.

And if you haven’t got a human sense of self-identity, you can not be trusted in a revolutionary situation. Because the question is, when you’re pushed to crisis, are you going to go for the mask, or are you going to go for an aperture? Are you going to worry about what the crowd says, or are you going to worry about what has to be done? If you’re thinking about what the crowd’s going to say, you’re dead! And you’re a menace!

The interesting thing is, creativity has to be task oriented. It requires leisure, but it’s task-oriented leisure.

Wilhelm Furtwängler, an Immortal Passion

Sigerson: You can hear that passion in the “young” Mr. LaRouche, because creativity is also a passion for the development of mankind, and the preservation of the potential for creativity. And the passion for saving that precious idea from all enemies who want to stomp it out.

In this second section, I will introduce you to Wilhelm Furtwängler. You can read more in an article by Matthew Ogden, “The Immortality of Wilhelm Furtwängler,” from EIR, May 22, 2015.

Wilhelm Furtwängler was a close friend of Yehudi Menuhin, a great Jewish violinist. When he was very young, Menuhin played for Furtwängler—before World War II—and they became very close associates. Unlike a number of people, Yehudi Menuhin defended Furtwängler’s very courageous decision to remain in Germany, to remain in Hitler’s Germany, and not to just emigrate and leave, and let culture be completely destroyed by the Nazis and the cultural degenerates who were running the Nazi leadership with Hitler. Furtwängler has been, and still is slandered as a Nazi, as a Nazi supporter. He deserves exactly the kind of exoneration that Lyndon LaRouche deserves, for that reason.

Think of the fireman: A house is burning, and there’s a baby inside. What do you do, under that situation? You know that if you go into that house, you’re going to risk your life, but you may actually save that child. Do you run the other way? Wilhelm Furtwängler, Germany’s leading artist, had to make that decision. He represented everything beautiful and good in German culture. He decided to stay.

Life-long friends Yehudi Menuhin (left) and William Furtwängler.

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

At the very end of the war, Hitler put Furtwängler on the list of people to be executed. Furtwängler, fortunately, was warned and managed to slip away in time. He avoided being executed—many other great intellectuals were not able to avoid that fate. Yehudi Menuhin, unlike Artur Rubinstein and the author Thomas Mann, who both said of Furtwängler’s decision to stay, “Well, he’s a Nazi,” Menuhin said, “No, I’m going to stand up for Furtwängler, because he was right, his decision was correct, and he’s a great person, and he actually saved the best of European culture.”

The Greatest of These Is Love

On Furtwängler’s gravestone, in Heidelberg, Germany is the text: Nun aber bleibet Glaube, Hoffnung, Liebe, diese drei; aber die Liebe ist die größeste unter ihnen. In English: And now abideth Faith, Hope, Love, these three; but the greatest of these is Love. That’s from Paul, I Corinthians, 13. These are the words of the last of the Brahms Four Serious Songs.

Furtwängler, who died in 1954, wrote in his Notebooks in 1936:

Love—love that is forever being seized and shaken by the work—can never be replaced. Love alone creates the preconditions for the visionary and correct understanding of “the whole” in the work of art, for this whole is nothing but love.

By love, Furtwängler, as in Corinthians, means the Greek idea of agapē; which is holy love, not sensual love. This agapic love, this passion, is the real motive force of all great, creative work: it the uplifting of humanity. It is reflected, certainly, in the love amongst individuals, but agapic love is the source.

Furtwängler continued:

Each individual part can be more or less understood intellectually, but the whole can only ever be grasped by the living feeling of love. It is the only thing which is appropriate and fitting to the whole work of art as an image of the active and living world. Everything else, however skillful it may be, is limited, and therefore profoundly boring to me.

LaRouche on Brahms and Agapic Love

In 2002, a few of us approached Mr. LaRouche to talk about the Four Serious Songs, because we were thinking about performances of it. Mr. LaRouche had always talked about the 1951 performance by a very great baritone, Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau, who was then working very, very closely with Furtwängler, and being coached by him on the piece.

That discussion was very well prepared by Mr. LaRouche, much more than we had expected. He presented to us, over the telephone, a beautiful, 26-minute exposition of his entire idea of the significance of the Four Serious Songs and Brahms, from the standpoint of universal creativity. Here is that presentation:

LaRouche: I’ve been working on this for the better part of, what is it now?—about 55 years. It’s slightly ripened and cured, after sitting in the hothouse all these years.

It started with my work in dealing with a question of poetry, as Classical poetry. And the relation between Classical poetry, as composition, and proper rendition, and the communication of ideas which correspond by the nature of their discovery, to universal physical principles.

Poetry does this in a way which the educated, school use of the English language does not do, even back then, before it degenerated as much as it’s degenerated recently. People do run-ons. They don’t speak. They don’t think. They recite words in a string. We once had a few people who could actually think, when they spoke poetry, for example some of the best Classical actors.

This became clearest, for me, in the course of the period from about 1947 into 1952-53, it became more and more clear to me, that the Classical German Lied in its use of the human voice, is not merely a way of singing, the bel canto way of singing—of course it’s perfectly clear in the Italian, the Italian Classical works, such as Verdi. But the German has a very specific characteristic to it, in the way it develops around Classical poetry, the communication of ideas.

The Four Serious Songs of Brahms

The combination of all of this, in terms of all of the qualities which I located in the Classical German expression of music, was the Brahms Vier ernste Gesänge. And Gesänge, the Four Serious Songs—particularly, the very last part of it, the sostenuto part, the “aber die Liebe.” The transition, sung by the best singers, from the “drei” to the rest, and then to the “aber die Liebe,” when properly articulated, so there’s really a continuity—you have a rest, but no rest, because, in a sense, the hearer is hearing the last note of “drei,”—it is suspending that, and it is coming a half-tone up, but into a different modularity. It’s still in the same key, the known key signature, but it’s a different modularity, and it’s done in a different voice. The transition from “diese drei,” to the beginning of the “aber die Liebe,” is actually the introduction of an idea, and when it is phrased in such a way that the continuity bridges the irony, bridges in a sense a kind of dissonance, between the last note of the “drei” and “aber,” across this rest—when that occurs, you have a very striking effect on the mind.

Now, in order to do that, you have to have a bel canto singer, a really Classical, Florentine bel canto singer. I was acquainted with some bel canto singers, but my experience from 1952 and 1953, was with this Fischer-Dieskau performance of the Vier ernste Gesänge. It was this particular last part of the performance, which particularly struck me, this transition across the rest from the “drei” to the “aber die Liebe,” because this expresses an idea.

Now, this is the way music has to be approached. That is, anything that is worth [being called] music. You don’t start from theory, to interpretation, to text. You start from idea, which has to be ironical, paradoxical, and yet a resolved paradox, an idea. You start from the idea, to how are you able to effect this effect, more efficiently than you can in Classical poetry as such—within music? And how must music be developed to do this?

Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau

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

A Spiritual Exercise

Now, Vier ernste Gesänge has another characteristic, which is, it shows that some of our greatest composers, Bach, Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, and Brahms, concentrated some of their best and most intensive composition on religious, or shall we say “spiritual” themes. You have Bach in particular, the St. John Passion and [the] St. Matthew Passion, and other works of that character, express this business of starting with a religious idea, and how do you express this poetically in music? Now, the question is how do you use a text, a literal text, as your libretto, and use that in the music as a way of presenting an idea which is an idea, which you are bringing out as a composer, and presumably a performer, from the text, that is from the overall musical text, by singing. That means that you must perceive and find something in the composition, which enables you to make those spiritual exercises, which are these transitions, like the transition to which I referred in the closing section of the fourth part of the Brahms Vier ernste Gesänge.

That was my starting point. It involved a lot of things over the preceding years, a lot of the Schubert Lieder, as done, especially, by bel canto singers. This opened the door for me. Because, I was concerned, with what? That ideas are applied not only to what we call, universal scientific principles, but they also apply to the method by which we communicate ideas of that quality, one to another, from generation to generation, and across cultures—such as the revival of the Classical culture, by the Renaissance in particular, by the 15th-century Renaissance. This transmission of ideas, which is the ability to cooperate around ideas, efficiently in society, this is the crucial distinction of man from the beast. And this is expressed best, in terms of social relations, social functions, by music of this type.

Brahms was in his own way quite aware of this. And the position of this work, in his life’s work, it’s almost his last will and testament. It is an intensely religious work, which goes through using four hymns in succession, to come to the point of the last of the hymns, which is the I Corinthians 13. Now, I Corinthians 13 expresses the most profound conception in all science, and in all social relations, the concept called, in Greek, agapē. This is what Liebe is. Liebe is the German translation of this Greek conception, which is also passed through the Latin as caritas, and into such forms as “general welfare, common good, love,” and Liebe, in English and other usages. But the concept is the same.

General Welfare, Common Good, and Love

So Brahms is, is actually putting the person through, the stages of development of an idea, in which the idea, from beginning to end, is what is disclosed at the end, with “aber die Liebe,” at the end, the last passage.

We must say that all single-issue religion is fake, single-issue morality is a fake. Human morality has to be based on a principle, which is consistent with the distinction between man and the beast.

So now in the case of Brahms, you have this clever fellow, and he shows how clever he was, what he did with the Fourth Symphony, which was a master work of conception—and a thorough master work of conception—so this fellow who has worked through a lot of Bach, worked through the contributions of Schumann and others, and gone through a lot of ancient music as well, in order to understand modalities. And you find in these works, there are a certain number of modalities. If you try to think of a major/minor key system, you miss the point, because the well-tempered system is not a major/minor key system, it’s not an equal tempered system, it’s a well-tempered system. This system was designed to subsume the continued use of modalities, of the ancient Greek, for example, type of modalities. For example, Lydian is one of those modalities, which was brought into modern composition from the Greek, the Lydian mode, and so forth. You have the Phrygian mode, these various modes. And then you have things like the Hungarian minor, which Brahms played with it. Liszt tried to play with it, too, in his own way, not too successfully.

But, these kinds of modalities also turn up, and they turn up as contrapuntal features of all kinds of compositions in all kinds of ways. These modalities also have certain characteristics, certain internal coloration, and implicitly they have a somewhat different key characteristic. When you use the modality, you’re actually bringing in something like mood, an actual mood; and all these elements are there.

Johannes Brahms in 1889.

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

Brahms, the Great Master

So here’s Brahms, who’s used all this sort of thing, who worked through Bach—for example, take the fugue, earlier in Brahms’ work, in the fugue in the Opus 24, the Variations on a Theme by Haydn, and the fugue there, attests to Brahms’ mastery of the art of the fugue in there. It’s a very tight, beautiful, little work. But Brahms is a mastery, becoming always a master.

So we come to the end of the greatest musical masters, the terminal phase of his contributions to music, Johannes Brahms, and we look at two works which are sort of afterthoughts to his previous life’s work, the Opus 20, the two clarinet-piano sonatas; and then immediately following, his Vier ernste Gesänge, and they have certain related qualities in terms of composition features.

So here’s Brahms, who represents the pinnacle in the summation of a whole span of composition, from Bach, notably, and Handel, also, but Bach essentially, through Brahms;, and here’s Brahms taking in the most serious theme, sort of a last will and testament, Vier ernste Gesänge, to convey one idea, by these four songs: That idea is the idea of agapē, the supremacy of agapē. And he does it by using I Corinthians 13, which is, shall we say, the most concentrated expression of agapē, in a systemic way, in the Apostolic writings.

Now, you see the same thing in Bach, which I referred to earlier, Bach in the Passions. What is the function of the Passions? To understand the music, you’ve got to understand the purpose of the musical composition. The purpose of the musical composition and the occasion for which it is designed, is the experience of the Passion and Crucifixion of Christ, such that the singers, the soloists, the congregation, the other instrumentalists, are all participating in reenacting on the stage of their mind, but actively participating, to reenact in the stage of their mind, to relive, the experience, as a spiritual experience, of the Passion and Crucifixion of Christ. So, Bach is not merely a good composer, who can do things on themes of Church themes: Bach is an intensely religious person, in this sense. So is Brahms: This work is an intensely religious work, it is not merely a series of hymns, it is an intensely religious work, focussed on a single principle: the most important principle that distinguishes man from the beast, the essence of all spirituality. And it’s there.

William Warfield

So, that’s the reason I picked on this at this time, because Bill Warfield had been a little bit ill, as you know, and he loved this piece, this Brahms. And I knew it. So, I wanted to get him to see himself as he should see himself: He’s over 80, and physically, he doesn’t have the punch he used to have, he doesn’t have the physical range of capabilities he used to have. (The mechanism does wear down a bit, as you go along; I try to slow it down a bit, somewhat successfully—but it does slow down a bit.)

And his great value is not as a performer. It doesn’t mean he shouldn’t perform, but his great value at this point, is to lay on hands, and pass the mantle, of understanding and insight to new generations, so that we do not lose, what previous generations have contributed. Which is not merely a matter of writing books and doing exercises and so forth; you actually have this personal interchange, as the teacher and the student, in a transmission, as a spiritual experience, which is an interpersonal relationship; it is not an abstract, classroom, blackboard relationship. It is not a performance demonstration technique. It is actually getting inside the mind of the student, the person who’s going to do the performing, next, and get that student to experience the notion of principle, which is embodied. And once they get it inside them, they may not have mastered it, but at least now they have a sense of their objective, in the performance. Without that interpersonal relationship, it never works.

So, what happens then, in modern times, you have people running around calling themselves musicians, or “trained in music.” You say, “What’s that worth?” Well, not too much. You have all kinds of people who are “trained in music,” or so-called “musicians.” Some of them are worse than music could be, but they’re considered “experts.” Some of them are butchers, monsters, criminals, who destroy music: They’ve mastered it enough to be able to destroy it more efficiently. And when they think from a musicological standpoint, they don’t understand music! Because music is something which is typical of human beings: The human singing voice is different than that of the birds, for example. It’s different than that of animal cries.

Start with the Human Singing Voice

So that we start with the human singing voice, in its most natural form, that is in the use of the whole physiological mechanism, and mental mechanism associated with it, in such a way, that we bring forth what this instrument can do. We then try to find, using the standard provided by that instrument, or those six types of instruments and their variations, we use that as saying, “this is our palette, this is the color palette; this is what we can work with to make our painting, or portrait.” Then we discover the laws of this: How can we use this palette, to convey ontological paradoxes, of the type we associate with spiritual exercises, that is, with the actual act of confronting a paradox, and discovering an experimentally verifiable, universal physical principle? How do we bring that experience, as a social relationship between the performance and the audience, for example, how do we bring that into actuality, as social relationship, in the sense of the purpose of the Vier ernste Gesänge? Which is not to be an achievement in music, per se, but is to convey a conception, which for Brahms, made the meaning of his life, it expressed the meaning of his life.

So it is not a musical composer, doing a professional exercise. It is something in which you start from the objective, of conveying important ideas, ideas corresponding to, or equivalent to universal physical principle. Then you turn to your palette, what music can do; you turn to the Bach counterpoint conception of well-tempered counterpoint, and what comes out of it; because you use that because the essence of the Bach counterpoint is irony, it’s ontological paradoxes; using the paradoxes inherent in music, and bel canto music, using those paradoxes, as counterpoint, in order to create the tension, which builds up, through successions of such paradoxes, to a musical idea, of a whole composition.

Now, having developed that technique, you then go back, from the idea to be expressed, and you bring all that you’ve discovered about music from that standpoint, to bear on a composition. And that’s a far different way of looking at it, than is generally taught today, and among us. I see most of the follies among us, on music, are a result of trying to say, “I am going to try to qualify myself, or pass for an expert on music. Or pass for doing a credible job in performing.”

The Toad to the Centipede

Generally, it’s like this disgusting character, who’s now deceased, probably the best thing he ever did: Sir Laurence Olivier. Who, when interviewed toward the end of his life, and asked, “Mr. Great Man”—it’s like the toad speaking to the centipede—“Great Centipede, why are you so beautiful?” So, this toad of a reporter or interviewer, is asking this crawling thing, Sir Laurence Olivier, how did you become an actor? Why do people become actors, great actors, like you? And he turned to the guy and said, “Look at me!” He’s on stage performing like a child, curtseying at Miss Marple’s coming out party, and curtseying, waiting for the applause. They’re out there performing, not to deliver a message, not to do a work of art, but in order to be admired—personal, sensual, admiration. Like a prostitute, posing on a street corner!

Now, many people in music do exactly that—or wish they could. They get turned down so many times,—“there must be a little problem here. I have to go to school to learn how to become a better prostitute.”

That’s the nature of the problem, is, with us, there’s too much of this—and you had this with Peter Wyer, that instrumental music is the standard. He praised John [Sigerson], because John knew the piano, and therefore, John could sing. Well, John could touch the piano because he could sing, not the other way around! Because it was a sense of how to make the piano sing! How to make the ’cello sing, how to make the instrument sing, like human beings, which is the art of performance. It’s a tactical art of performance, not how to make these instruments squawk, squeak and so forth, according to some set of rules.

And the great actor, as I’ve emphasized repeatedly, does not try to appear on the stage, in the mind of the audience. The great actor tries to get the stage, the actual, physical stage, out of the mind of the audience, to perform a part which is being created, on the stage of the imagination of the member of the audience. And then a sense of the interaction among the members of the audience who are experiencing a performance on the stage of their imagination, not the visual stage, not the heard stage.

Under the Skin into the Mind

The same thing is true in music. The objective is not to perform, to be admired. The objective is to get under the skin, so to speak, into the mind, and to convey an idea, using the power of developed bel canto, well-tempered musicality, as a weapon of poetry, a weapon of prosody, to get efficiently inside the mind of the audience, to convey an idea, which emerged on the stage of the audience’s imagination.

Then, when the music stops, the audience awakens from its trance, looks at the stage, and says, “That bum was making all this beauty?” [laughter] That’s the objective of the audience. That’s why the performers often grin at the applause of the audience. “Here I’m in this ol’ ugly thing up here, slogging away, and these guys are fascinated with what I did! And they look at me, and they say, ‘who is this guy? What’s he doin’ in that stage? Here was this beautiful idea, and now he pops in!’ ha ha!”

And that’s the objective of the great artist, is to create a character, an idea, a message, in the mind of the audience, a kind of spiritual exercise, where you bring to life an idea, you bring it to life in their mind; the performance of that idea in their mind becomes a kind of spiritual exercise, in which paradoxes are resolved as the intuition of principles. Essentially, these are principles of social relations, as typified by the Vier ernste Gesänge, which is a beautiful example; but you look at this from Bach, through the greatest composers, especially those who use these spiritual themes, through Brahms, and you have a picture of the objective of music.

Now, our problem in music, essentially, as I’ve seen it, what I’ve run into as problems over the years, is precisely this: It’s like Dave Goldman. Tell Dave Goldman, look, you want to understand music, you’ve got to get into Kepler, understand what the Kepler harmonics means, where it comes from, study it. And he said, “No!” “I was perfected at the age of 22, at Columbia University, and I have nothing new to learn since.” And that’s the kind of problem we’ve had.

EIRNS

Lyndon LaRouche, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, and Gertrude Pitzinger share an afternoon of great culture on Pitzinger’s 93rd birthday.

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

The Great Classical Tradition:

Gertrude Pitzinger

Sigerson: Gertrude Pitzinger was born in 1904, and lived to the ripe age of 93, dying in 1997. During the 1920s and the ’30s, she became one of Germany’s leading singers of Lieder. She went to every town and every city in Germany, singing concerts of the beautiful Lieder of Schubert, Brahms, Schumann, and so forth. On the eve of World War II, in 1938 and ’39, she was invited to sing a concert series in the United States, and so she came here. She was accompanied by Hubert Giesen, who later on, after the war, became the major accompanist and coach of Germany’s leading tenor, Fritz Wunderlich.

She came to the United States, having prepared all sorts of songs in English, but as she went around to various cities and towns, people said, “We don’t want to hear those English songs, we want to hear the German Lieder!”

Many of the concerts of Beethoven’s Ninth, with Furtwängler, were done with her singing the alto part. In 1955, one of Furtwängler’s closest friends and associates, Eugen Jochum, gave a concert at the Salzburg Cathedral of the Mozart Requiem, which although it was not billed as such, it really was a requiem for Wilhelm Furtwängler, who had just died a couple of months earlier. Gertrude Pitzinger was the alto in that performance as well.

The Schiller Institute became acquainted with her in the late 1980s. Up to her death, she had a very close relationship with members of the Schiller Institute and with Lyndon and Helga personally. During the course of that, she gave us a tape of the Four Serious Songs from her private collection. As far as I know, that performance has never been commercially released.

In that recording, the audience could hear for themselves what LaRouche was saying about the transition at the very end, the transition from “drei” to the “aber die Liebe.” Note that that’s at the very end of the last two lines of song four, “These three, but the greatest of these is love.” If you follow along, you’ll be able to hear that transition, which I think Gertrude Pitzinger does almost as equally well as Fischer-Dieskau does; it’s from the same sense.

Liliana Gorini studied with Pitzinger during the 1990s. Lyndon and Helga LaRouche were able to help Gertrude Pitzinger celebrate her 93rd birthday. We are a living tradition of this creative, loving idea of beauty, and must bring others into this living idea.

The class closed with Pitzinger singing the last two of the Four Serious Songs.

Brahms’ Vier ernste Gesänge, the Four Serious Songs

Third and Fourth songs, text in the original German and English translation

3. From Ecclesiasticus 41:1-2

O Tod, wie bitter bist du, wenn an dich gedenket ein Mensch, der gute Tage und genug hat und ohne Sorge lebet; und dem es wohl geht in allen Dingen und noch wohl essen mag!

O Tod, wie wohl tust du dem Dürftigen, der da schwach und alt ist, der in allen Sorgen steckt, und nichts Bessers zu hoffen noch zu erwarten hat!

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

O death, how bitter is the remembrance of thee to a man that liveth at rest in his possessions, unto the man that hath nothing to vex him, and that hath prosperity in all things: yea, unto him that is yet able to receive meat!

O death, acceptable is thy sentence unto the needy, and unto him whose strength faileth, that is now in the last age, and is vexed with all things, and to him that despaireth, and hath lost patience!

* * * * * * * * * * *

4. From I Corinthians 13:1-3, 12-13

Wenn ich mit Menschen- und mit Engelzungen redete, und hätte der Liebe nicht, so wär ich ein tönend Erz, oder eine klingende Schelle.

Und wenn ich weissagen könnte, und wüßte alle Geheimnisse und alle Erkenntnis; und hätte allen Glauben, also daß ich Berge versetzte; und hätte der Liebe nicht, so wäre ich nichts.

Und wenn ich alle meine Habe den Armen gäbe, und ließe meinen Leib brennen; und hätte der Liebe nicht, so wäre mirs nichts nütze.

Wir sehen jetzt durch einen Spiegel in einem dunkeln Worte; dann aber von Angesicht zu Angesichte. Jetzt erkenne ichs stückweise; dann aber werd ichs erkennen, gleichwie ich erkennet bin.

Nun aber bleibet Glaube, Hoffnung, Liebe, diese drei; aber die Liebe ist die größeste unter ihnen.

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

Though I speak with the tongues of men and angels, and have not love, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not love, I am nothing.

And though I bestow all of my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not love, it profiteth me nothing.

For now we see through a glass darkly; but then face to face; now I know in part; but then shall I know even as I am known.

And now abideth faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

EDITORIAL

FROM STRANGELOVE TO DEARLOVE

Is the United States Conducting British War Without the Knowledge of the President?

Who holds the power to launch cyberwar, and even thermonuclear war, the President of the United States, or Her Majesty’s Secret Service and her Tory accomplices?

Multiple news outlets followed the New York Times report on June 15 with stories proclaiming that the Pentagon’s U.S. Cyber Command has expanded offensive cyber-attacks on Russia’s power grid and other infrastructure targets. At a Wall Street Journal seminar on Tuesday, June 11, the loud-mouthed warmonger, National Security Adviser John Bolton, proclaimed that this expanded warfare regime was in existence. This was followed by the above Times story citing sources within U.S. Cyber Command and the National Security Council. All agree: President Trump has not been briefed on this; information concerning these warfare measures is deliberately being kept from him because he might countermand them.

It appears to be part of a concerted strategy by the intelligence community, taking orders from the City of London and Wall Street’s financial houses, to lure the President into wars, which will ensure his electoral defeat while risking the annihilation of the human race in the process.

President Trump responded to the Times story with tweets saying it was treason and not true. The Times story itself says that the aggressiveness of this strategy could have incalculable results’—as in nuclear warfare escalation.

According to the Times, U.S. cyber warfare has been targeted at the Russians since 2012, but has recently become more aggressive. The Washington Post reported that President Obama conducted the first stage of this dangerous escalation shortly before leaving office’—in response to the alleged Russian hacking of the Democratic National Committee and John Podesta.

Last year, according to the Times, Congress snuck a new provision into the Defense Authorization Act, which gives the Pentagon’s Cyber Command the ability to conduct cyber strikes without informing the President. General Paul M. Nakasone, who now heads the Cyber Command and the NSA, is described as a proponent of aggressive offensive cyberwar. The Times says that the American strategy has now shifted more toward the offense, with placement of potentially crippling malware inside the Russian system, at a depth and with an aggressiveness never previously attempted. It is partly intended as a warning, and partly to be poised to conduct cyber-strikes if a major conflict were to break out between Washington and Moscow.

The British House of Lords, in a 2018 foreign policy review that prioritized preventing a second term of the Trump presidency, also recommended cyberwar measures against Russia. This year, UK funds have been earmarked for an increase in operational cyberwar capabilities.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, in a June 13 interview with the Mir channel, warned, “Our relations with the U.S.-they are in fact deteriorating, getting worse by the hour.”

Recent visitors to Moscow have found almost universal agreement that nuclear war with the United States seems to be becoming inevitable. This is the latest manifestation of the ongoing, and absolutely treasonous, coup taking place against Donald Trump in response to his vow to end imperial wars conducted in the name of the United States—and it is, perhaps, the most dangerous.

How the President, under persistent attack, responds to these actions, which could lead to nuclear Armageddon, is one thing. Hopefully, he will fire all those involved and seek a new strategic agreement on all fronts with Russia and China.

To send a clear signal to Russia, China, and to the true friends of United States, the exoneration of Lyndon LaRouche—the leading adversary throughout his life of British geopolitics and “perpetual war” strategy—may be the best, if not the only means for reestablishing the trust among nations that is the prerequisite to ensuring the survival of the human race.